if. 


LIBRARY 

OF   THK 

UNIVERSITY   OR-  CALIFORNIA 

Received. 
Accessions  No. .'t  s/uif  JVo... 


;-S',v-., 

';:^'":;.:':l 


THE  WORLD-ENERGY 


AND    ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION. 


BY 

WILLIAM  M.  BRYANT. 


"In  each  there  is  something  of  all."—  Anaxagoraa. 


CHICAGO: 
S.   C.   GRIGGS    AND    COMPANY, 

1890. 


'B7T 


COPYRIGHT  1890, 
BY  S.  C.  GRIGGS  &  COMPANY. 


PRESS  OF 

KNIGHT   &   LEONARD  CO. 
CHICAGO. 


PKEFACE. 


present  volume  owes  its  origin  to  studies  that 
-*-  began  more  than  twenty  years  ago.  The  studies 
themselves  were  prompted  by  a  desire  which  soon  became 
imperative.  And  that  desire  was  to  find  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  the  question:  What  is  "  Man's  Place  in 
Nature  ?" 

Many  things  highly  interesting  and  suggestive  were 
said  from  time  to  time -by  the  naturalists  upon  this 
theme.  And  yet,  as  I  came  at  length  to  notice,  the 
question  itself  seemed  to  be  ambiguous.  For,  whatever 
answer  might  be  given  it,  all  must  depend  at  last  upon 
the  answer  to  this  further  question,  namely :  What  is 
that  reality  which  we  call  "Nature?"  Allowing  that 
man  is  a  product  of  "Nature/'  there  still  seemed  no 
other  way  to  learn  the  real  nature  and  destiny  of  man 
than  through  a  successful  inquiry  as  to  the  essence, 
the  inmost  nature  of  "Nature"  itself.  If  this  term 
"Nature"  should  prove  to  have  a  wider,  and  even  so 
much  wider  as  to  be  a  radically  different,  significance 
from  that  which  it  is  usually  assumed  to  represent, 
then  our  estimate  of  "man's  place  in  Nature"  must  be 
correspondingly  modified.  And  this  might  very  likely 

iii 


IV  PBEFACE. 

mean  nothing  more  nor  less  than  that  man's  "  nature " 
is  far  more  complex  than  could  be  inferred  from  any- 
thing we  are  able  to  learn  through  what  is  commonly 
understood  by  the  descriptive  phrase  "Natural  Science." 

At  the  same  time,  the  results  in  this  particular  field 
of  inquiry  show  a  vitality  in  the  method  of  inquiry 
through  which  the  results  are  obtained,  that  could  not 
be  lightly  esteemed.  Indeed,  the  more  I  learned  of  the 
"speculative"  method  of  inquiry  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  the  method  of  inquiry  in  Natural  Science  on  the  other, 
the  more  did  it  appear  to  me  that  so  far  as  men  really 
think,  the  method  of  their  thinking  not  only  must 
prove,  but  actually  does  prove,  to  be  one  and  the  same. 
The  method  may  be  consciously  pursued,  and  thus  may, 
or  rather  must,  itself  become  the  object  of  investiga- 
tion— in  which  case  it  shows  itself  as  explicitly  "  specu- 
lative;" or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  unconsciously 
pursued  and  applied  (for  example)  in  the  investigation 
of  physical  phenomena;  in  which  case  it  is  still  "specu- 
lative," though  it  is  so  only  implicitly — its  form  here 
being  that  of  "hypothesis." 

It  appeared,  then,  that  in  the  scientific  movement  of 
the  present  time  we  have  the  conspicuous  external 
counterpart,  or  rather  complement,  of  the  speculative 
movement,  which  first  assumed  an  explicit  scientific 
character  with  the  Greek  schools  of  thought,  and  which 
again  developed  into  special  vigor  and  effectiveness  in 
Germany  during  the  closing  years  of  last  century  and 
the  first  quarter  of  the  present. 


PEEFACE.  V 

In  short,  the  famous  Hegelian  dialectic  is  in  truth 
nothing  less  or  else  than  the  speculative  aspect  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Conservation  of  Energy,  which  consti- 
tutes the  vital  element  of  all  that  is  known  as  "  Modern 
Science."  The  former  presents  the  principle  of  Evolu- 
tion in  its  most  abstract,  but  also  in  its  most  rigidly 
consistent  form.  The  latter  unfolds  the  "dialectic" 
under  the  form  of  the  necessary  relations  or  laws  that 
"govern,"  or  rather  constitute,  natural  (in  the  sense 
of  physical)  phenomena. 

Thus,  instead  of  being  contradictory  the  one  of  the 
other,  these  two  great  movements  are  in  reality  but 
complementary  and  increasingly  adequate  phases  of  the 
ceaseless  struggle  on  the  part  of  the  human  mind  to 
bring  itself  into  harmony  with  the  actual  world  in  its 
essential,  and  therefore  ultimate,  significance. 

It  is  true  that  on  his  part  Hegel  treated  slightingly 
the  work  of  the  empirical  school,  which  had  already 
developed  admirable  results  in  his  time.  And  the 
members  of  this  school  have  ample  revenge  when  they 
point  to  the  astounding  absurdities  to  be  found  in 
Hegel's  "  Naturphilosopliie;"  a  work  which,  it  cannot  be 
reasonably  denied,  consists  in  great  part  of  a  series  of 
perverse  assumptions  defying  all  observed  facts.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  empiricists  who  scoff  at  that  method 
which  they  (wrongly)  assume  to  be  fairly  illustrated  in 
this  work,  have  on  their  part  only  too  often  attempted 
to  interpret  "Nature"  without  the  guidance  of  any 
clearly  defined  speculative  principle;  and  precisely  for 


VI  PREFACE. 

that  reason  they  have  been  now  and  then  betrayed  into 
speculations  that  would  grace  the  most  arbitrary  pages 
of  Hegel's  "  Naturpliilosophie." 

What  Hegel  needed  was  a  better  appreciation  of  the 
empirical  aspects  of  inquiry.  What  the  empirical  scien- 
tist needs  is  a  better  appreciation  of  the  speculative 
aspects  of  inquiry.  And  clear  indications  are  not 
wanting  that  the  true  relation  between  the  empirical 
and  the  speculative  is  coming  to  be  better  understood 
by  many  in  both  these  special  schools  of  thought. 

If  this  be  true,  we  may  infer  that  the  scientist  of 
the  future  will  not  be  content,  nor  even  feel  secure, 
without  a  " speculative"  training;  while  the  specialist  in 
speculative  studies  will  not  dare,  even  if  he  should 
desire,  to  remain  in  ignorance  of  the  special  methods 
and  results  of  the  so-called  empirical  sciences. 

Indeed,  as  was  just  intimated,  these  sciences  are 
already  far  from  wanting  in  sufficiently  daring  specula- 
tions. And  it  is  to  be  added  that  the  culmination  of 
these  speculations,  in  their  most  elaborate  and  most 
consistent  presentation,  we  owe  to  Herbert  Spencer. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  have  never  been  able  to 
separate  the  work  of  Mr.  Spencer  from  that  of  Hegel, 
widely  as  these  two  are  contrasted  in  many  respects. 
Evolution,  and  fixity  of  order  in  Evolution — that  is  the 
key-note  of  both  systems.  The  one  develops  this  con- 
ception in  the  form  of  the  necessary  process  of  Thought 
itself.  The  other  traces  the  evidences  verifying  this 
conception  throughout  the  realm  of  "  Nature "  consid- 


PREFACE.  Vll 

ered  as  the  physical  universe.  The  system  of  Hegel 
has  been  named:  Absolute  Idealism.  Mr.  Spencer  calls 
his  own  system:  Transfigured  Realism.  The  latter 
begins  with  the  external  and  simpler  forms  of  Reality 
and  traces  them  through  their  relations  to  their  ulti- 
mate source — to  which  indeed  he  would  evidently  find 
satisfaction  in  applying  the  term :  Absolute  Being, 
though  he  refrains  from  using  any  more  definitely  de- 
scriptive name  than :  Persistent  Force.  Hegel  begins 
with  the  simplest,  most  abstract  concept  which  it  is 
possible  to  form,  and  names  that  concept  "Being." 
And  this  name,  it  is  all-important  to  notice,  is  the  name 
of  a  concept  only;  that  is,  the  name  of  a  concept  cor- 
responding to  which  there  is  no  reality  other  than  the 
concept  itself.  But  to  become  aware  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  outer  reality  corresponding  to  the  inner  real 
concept  of  mere  pure  being,  that  is  to  form  in  the  mind 
another  concept  with  reference  to  this  outer  no-reality. 
And  it  is  a  fact  sufficiently  familiar  to  all  that  to  this 
other  concept  the  term  Nothing  is  applied.  It  turns  out, 
then,  that  the  term  nothing,  equally  with  the  term  being, 
represents  a  real  concept,  while  yet  in  each  case  there 
is  equally  no  objective  reality  to  which  the  concept  or 
its  corresponding  category  can  apply.  Hence  the  often 
repeated  and  seldom  understood  expression  of  Hegel 
that  "  Being  and  nothing  are  the  same." 

But  in  these  barren  concepts  it  is  impossible  for 
thought  to  rest.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  driven  onward 
by  its  own  nature  to  more  and  more  concrete  concepts 


Vlll  PEEFACE. 

until  there  is  reached  the  concept  expressed  in  the 
category  of  Totality  with  all  that  this  implies;  in  short, 
until  there  is  reached  the  concept  of  Cause  in  the 
sense  of  a  totality  that  is  eternally  complete  in  its  own 
self-activity.  And  this,,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  just  the 
Persistent  Force  to  which  Mr.  Spencer's  system  leads  up 
— only  with  far  more  adequate  and  consistent  definition 
than  Mr.  Spencer  gives  it.  Mr.  Spencer  traces  out  an 
"established  order"  in  the  world  of  Things.  Hegel 
traces  out  the  necessary  or  "established"  order  in  the 
world  of  Thought. 

Thus  far  these  two  systems  seem  on  first  view  to 
be  merely  antithetical.  And  yet,  as  I  have  attempted 
to  show  in  the  argument  of  the  present  volume,  the 
established  order  of  the  world  of  Things  is  what  it  is 
precisely  because  it  is  the  outer  expression,  and  nothing 
else  than  the  outer  expression,  of  the  ' '  established  "• 
that  is,  the  necessary  or  logical — order  of  Thought.  In 
other  words,  Thought  and  Things  are  but  the  necessary 
complementary  aspects  of  the  one  Totality  of  Existence. 

In  short,  what  I  have  attempted  to  do  is:  To  trace 
out,  and  thus  to  render  explicit,  the  speculative  thread 
that  is  already  present  implicitly  as  the  vital  principle 
of  the  modern  scientific  movement.  It  will  thus  be 
manifest  that  my  purpose  has  not  been  "critical"  so 
much  as  interpretative.  I  have  not  been  concerned  to 
discover  the  momentary  weaknesses  of  that  movement 
so  much  as  to  find  its  central,  permanent  elements  of 
power. 


PKEFACE.  IX 

Feeling  the  need  of  help  in  my  efforts  to  solve  for 
myself  the  problem  that  involves  the  whole  significance 
of  life,  I  have  not  hesitated  to  seek  for  help  wherever 
there  seemed  promise  of  finding  help  —  being  no  less 
grateful  for  a  clue  in  the  realm  of  empirical  science 
than  for  one  in  the  realm  of  speculative  science.  Thus, 
at  length,  it  became  clear  to  me  that  Nature  is  not 
something  apart  from  Mind.  On  the  contrary,  it  became 
manifest  that  Nature  is  nothing  else  than  the  outer 
mode  of,  and  hence  has  its  only  truth  in,  Mind.  And 
this  conviction  seemed  to  already  present,  at  least  in 
germ,  that  solution  for  which  I  had  been  seeking.  For 
now  the  relation  of  man  to  "Nature"  was  seen  to  be  in 
truth  his  relation  to  the  Mind  which  manifests  itself  in 
Nature — a  conclusion  which  gives  to  the  question  as  to 
man's  Nature  and  destiny  an  immeasurably  more  hope- 
ful aspect  than  Natural  Science  in  the  usual  acceptation 
of  the  term  would  seem  to  warrant. 

And  not  only  so,  but  there  appears  to  be  here  pre- 
sented a  basis  for  the  complete  reconciliation  of  what  have 
only  too  commonly  been  regarded  as  contradictory  views 
of  the  world.  As  already  indicated,  the  empirical  and 
the  speculative  aspects  of  thought  are  by  no  means 
necessarily  antagonistic.  On  the  contrary,  when  rightly 
estimated,  they  are  but  the  complementary  phases  of  all 
true  inquiry.  Nor  is  this  all,  for  in  the  given  view 
(justified,  as  I  hope,  in  the  following  pages)  we  have  a 
secure  basis  for  the  complete  reconciliation  of  all  science, 
whether  predominantly  speculative  or  predominantly 


X  PREFACE. 

empirical,  with  any  Religion  that  is  worthy  the  name. 
For  according  to  this  view  the  whole  course  of  Science, 
whatever  aspect  may  for  the  hour  be  predominant, 
really  tends  to  prove  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  one  all-inclusive  Substance  is  in  its  very  nature  a 
conscious  Energy;  or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  the  one 
absolute  Person. 

On  such  view,  it  is  evident  that  the  "conflict  between 
Science  and  Religion"  is  rather  imaginary  than  real; 
even  though  an  occasional  dogmatic  scientist  should  still 
persist  in  announcing,  as  by  authority,  the  overthrow  of 
Religion  as  nothing  more  than  an  old  wives'  fable;  and 
though  here  and  there  a  skeptical  theologian  should 
more  or  less  scoffingly  declare  that  Science  is  only  a 
collection  of  idle  fancies,  having  their  origin  in  the 
unregenerate  pride  of  man. 

In  short,  just  as  the  empirical  and  the  speculative 
aspects  of  science  cannot  be  separated  from  each  other 
without  destroying  science;  so  Religion  approaches  only  so 
much  the  nearer  to  gross  superstition  the  less  it  is  per- 
vaded by  the  scientific  spirit.  To  bring  one's  thought 
into  unison  with  the  established  order  of  the  World — 
itself  a  world  of  Reason — that  is  the  religion  of  the 
intellect.  To  deliberately  bring  one's  conduct  into  har- 
mony with  that  order — that  is  the  religion  of  the  will. 
To  harmonize  one's  feeling,  the  entire  range  of  his 
sentiment,  with  that  order,  so  that  he  delights  in  doing 
whatever  is  consistent  with  the  rational  World-order — 
that  is  the  religion  of  the  emotions.  And  yet  these 


PREFACE.  XI 

three  are  but  the  essential  and  complementary  aspects 
of  Eeligion  in  its  genuine,  practical,  concrete  signifi- 
cance. 

To  decry  science  is  to  commit  oneself  to  the  per- 
petuation of  superstition.  To  decry  religion  is  to 
threaten  the  existence  of  the  ultimate  motive  leading 
to  any  and  every  effort  in  the  field  of  science.  Equally 
true  is  it,  whether  in  the  realm  of  science  or  in  the 
realm  of  religion,  that  nothing  can  survive  save  that 
which  is  adapted  to  its  environment.  And  in  the  out- 
come the  one. real  environment  of  human  thought,  as  of 
human  faith,  is  the  abiding  Truth  of  the  World. 

While,  then,  it  may  be  true  that  "man  is  what  he 
eats  (Mann  ist  was  er  isst,")  it  is  equally  true  that 
man  is  what  he  thinks  and  what  he  does  in  pursuance 
of  his  thinking.  So  that  " man's  place  in  Nature"  is 
essentially  his  relation  as  a  thinking  (and  therefore 
indestructible)  agent  to  -the  ultimate  Reason,  which  con- 
stitutes all  that  is  of  the  reality  we  call  "Nature." 

Such  are  the  convictions  at  which  I  have  myself 
arrived.  Whether  the  following  discussion  will  justify 
these  convictions  to  the  reader  must,  of  course,  be  deter- 
mined by  the  reader  himself. 

I  have  only  to  add  that  for  the  carefully  prepared 
index  accompanying  this  volume,  I  am  indebted  to  the 
kindness  of  my  young  friend,  Mr.  Charles  L.  Deyo. 

ST.  Louis,  March,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION. — ELEMENTS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF  KNOWLEDGE,    .      1 


CHAPTER  II. 
MATTER  AND  ITS  PROPERTIES,     ...  40 

CHAPTER  III. 

PHENOMENON  AND  NOUMENON. — THE  ATOM  AS  FIGURED  IN  IMAG- 
INATION,           ....     53 

CHAPTER  IV. 
TRUTH  OF  THE  ATOM. — PENETRABILITY  OF  MATTER,    .        .         65 

CHAPTER  V. 

TRANSITION  TO  THE  QUANTITATIVE  ASPECTS  OF  MATTER  THROUGH 
INCREASE  IN  QUALITATIVE  CHARACTERISTICS,      .  .71 

CHAPTER  VI. 

DEFINITE  QUANTITATIVE  RELATIONS  IN  MATTER,          .         .         80 

CHAPTER  VII. 

As  TO  CONTINUITY  AND  DISCRETENESS  OF  QUANTITY  IN  MATTER,    83 

xiii 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

EXTENSIVE  AND  INTENSIVE  PHASES  OF  QUANTITY  IN  MATTER,       86 

CHAPTER  IX. 
MEASURE  AND  THE  MEASURELESS, 97 

CHAPTER  X. 

OF  THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  MOTION  IN  GENERAL,      .         .         .        109 

CHAPTER  X 
OF  THE  NATURE  OF  MOTION,  .         .        .         .        .        .122 

CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  LAWS  OF  MOTION,       . 131 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

ENERGY  AS  ADEQUATE  CAUSE  OF  MOTION,       .         .        .        .143 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  LAW  OF  UNIVERSAL  GRAVITATION,       .  .        „       150 

CHAPTER  XV. 
MOMENTUM, 157 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
LAWS  OF  PALLING  BODIES, 163 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
CURVILINEAR  MOTION,     .  .  170 


CONTENTS.  XV 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

MOLECULAR  MOTION,  .        .        .        .        .        .        .       178 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
CORRELATION  OF  FORCES  AND  CONSERVATION  OF  ENERGY,         .  196 

CHAPTER  XX. 
DOCTRINE  OF  CAUSE, 207 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
CREATOR  AND  CREATION,  .  ....  215 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  WORLD-ENERGY  AS  SPIRIT,          ...  .218 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL  MODES  OF  MANIFESTATION  OF  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 
AS  SPIRIT, .  242 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
EVOLUTION  OF  LIFE-FORMS, 255 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

FURTHER  CONSIDERATIONS  AS  TO  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  LIFE-FORMS,  265 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

CULMINATION  OF  THE  LIFE-PROCESS  IN  A  LIVING  UNIT  WHICH 
IS  CHARACTERIZED  BY  REFLECTIVE  CONSCIOUSNESS,     .        .  286 


THE   WOKIJWB^ffRGY  Al^D   ITS 
SELF-CONSERVATION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. — ELEMENTS  AND  CONDITIONS  OF  KNOWL- 
EDGE. 

a. — FACT   AND   THEORY. 

POPULAR  convictions  have  ever  tended  toward  com- 
pact embodiment  in  the  form  of  maxims.  Nor  in 
truth  is  this  anything  else  than  the  inevitable  outcome 
of  the  inherent  demand  of  the  mind  for  definition,  clear 
formulation.  There  is  nothing  really  surprising,  there- 
fore, in  the  fact  that  examples  of  this  tendency  present 
themselves  in  the  scientific  world  no  less  than  in  the 
world  of  every-day  affairs. 

There  is  one  maxim,  indeed,  that  has  found  special 
favor  among  men  of  science.  No  other  has,  in  fact, 
been  received  more  widely  or  with  less  question.  This 
favorite  maxim  commonly  runs  thus:  "  Facts  rather 
than  theories."  In  other  words,  in  all  investigations, 
whether  in  the  physical  world  or  in  the  world  of  mind, 
one  ought  always  to  put  his  trust  in  facts  rather  than 
in  theories.  The  latter  are  always  to  be  distrusted. 
The  former  alone  can  safely  be  relied  upon. 

i 


2  THE   WOKLD-ENEKGY 

From  the  confidence  with  which  this  rule  has  com- 
monly been  urged,  it  would  seem  that  there  could  be 
no  question  as  to  the  precision  and  adequacy  of  its  sig- 
nificance. And  yet  it  can  require  no  very  prolonged  or 
very  profound  reflection  to  discover  that  if  a  fact  is  to 
be  truly  a  fact  for  us,  it  must  first  be  subjected  to 
interpretation  by  us.  We  can  never  know  a  fact  until 
we  have  given  it  some  sort  of  interpretation.  And  our 
knowledge  of  the  fact  will  depend,  for  its  completeness,, 
precisely  upon  the  adequacy  of  our  interpretation. 

But  "interpretation"  is  substantially  the  construction 
of  a  "theory."  For  theory  is  primarily  just  a  look- 
ing-at  or  contemplation,  which  in  turn  unfolds  into  a 
conviction  of  the  mind  requiring  nothing  but  conscious 
formulation  to  render  it  clearly  recognizable  as  a  "theory," 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.  Hence  a  fact  becomes 
real  and  trustworthy  as  a  fact  to  us,  only  in  so  far  as  we 
have  formed  a  theory  concerning  it. 

It  appears  then,  that,  in  our  experience,  "facts," 
without  theories,  are  just  as  empty  and  worthless  as  are 
theories  without  facts.  Or  rather,  it  would  agree  with 
the  truth  still  more  precisely  to  say  that,  so  far  as  the 
experience  of  any  thinking  being  is  concerned,  it  is 
impossible  that  there  should  be  any  such  thing,  either 
as  a  fact  without  a  theory  or  a  theory  without  a  fact. 
The  fact  may  be  misapprehended — that  is,  misinter- 
preted— but  it  does  not  become  a  fact  at  all  for  the  indi- 
vidual otherwise  than  through  his  giving  it  his  interpre- 
tation, however  distorted  the  interpretation  may  be. 

Thus  it  can  become  a  fact  in  its  truth  for  him  only 
in  so  far  as  he  gives  it  a  true  interpretation,  only  in  so 
far  as  he  forms  a  rational  theory  concerning  it.  And 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  3 

now,  recurring  to  what  was  said  at  the  beginning,  it 
may  be  added  that  a  maxim  is  nothing  else  than  an 
abridged  statement  of  a  theory.  Following  which  it 
would  perhaps  not  be  wholly  amiss  to  inquire  whether 
the  "scientific"  maxim  we  have  just  been  considering 
is  wholly  exempt  from  the  untrustworthiness  so  confi- 
dently assumed  to  inhere  in  all  other  theories.  In  truth 
it  is  extremely  likely  to  be  just  that  theory  which  has 
been  least  scrutinized,  least  subjected  to  criticism,,  which 
turns  out  to  be  the  most  untrustworthy. 

b. — FUNCTION    OF    CONSCIOUSNESS. 

It  is  impossible  then  that  a  "fact"  should  come  into 
the  consciousness  of  an  individual  otherwise '  than  as  in 
part  the  actual  creation  of  that  consciousness.  A  sup- 
posed passive  impressibility  of  the  mind  is,  in  truth, 
but  a  contradiction  in  terms.  In  order  that  the  mind 
may  be  impressed  as  mind,  it  must  be  no  less  active 
than  passive.  It  must  receive — that  is,  actively  take  up 
into  itself — the  element  or  force  tending  to  produce  an 
eifect  upon  the  mind  from  without. 

But  this  active  reception  is  also  a  transformation. 
It  adds  to  the  outward  element  an  inner  element — 
namely,  that  of  the  mind's  own  activity — and  the  two 
are  now  fused  into  a  single,  indivisible  fact  of  con- 
sciousness. The  spontaneous  activity  of  the  mind  itself 
is  a  necessary  phase  of  every  fact  of  consciousness,  with- 
out which  phase,  therefore,  it  would  be  impossible  that 
any  such  fact  of  consciousness  should  ever  arise. 

The  first  "facts,"  then,  for  which  the  mind  must 
account*  are  the  facts  of  its  own  consciousness.  Nay, 
rather  the  only  facts  with  which  the  mind  can  ever 


THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

deal — the  only  facts  that  can  exist  for  it — are  the  facts 
of  its  own  consciousness.  The  only  world  for  me  is  the 
world  I  know. 

At  the  same  time,  this  statement  is  far  from  being 
equivalent  to  saying  that  at  any  given  moment  the 
individual,  empirical  consciousness  already  possesses  all 
the  facts  that  can  ever  exist  for  it.  This  would  indeed 
be  manifestly  absurd,  for  the  reason  that  the  indi- 
vidual consciousness  has  even  thus  far  been  unfolded 
into  reality  only  through  the  reciprocal  activity  that 
has  taken  place  from  time  to  time  between  the  "  inner " 
mind  and  the  "  outer "  world.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
to  be  understood  as  meaning  that  no  new  fact  can  be 
added  to  the  world  of  the  individual  save  through  the 
activity  of  the  individual  in  his  character  of  a  conscious 
unit.  And  this  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  each  new 
"fact,"  as  it  comes  into  the  consciousness  of  the  indi- 
vidual, passes  through  a  transforming,  creative  pro- 
cess, the  primary  element  of  which  process,  so  far  as 
the  individual  is  immediately  concerned,  is  the  spon- 
taneous activity  of  the  individual's  own  mind,  consist- 
ing in  the  seizure  and  fusion  with  itself  of  the  given 
outer  element.  It  is  only  thus  that  any  "fact"  what- 
ever can  become  known  to  the  individual  at  all. 

Whence,  let  us  repeat,  it  is  impossible  that  the  indi- 
vidual should  ever  really  know  any  fact  whatever,  other- 
wise than  in  so  far  as  it  has  already  come  to  be  a  fact 
of  his  own  consciousness.  So  that  the  function  of  con- 
sciousness appears  to  be  primarily  this:  To  seize  upon 
the  elements  offered  it  in  the  outer  world  of  nature 
and  to  interpret  those  elements  into  the  inner  world  of 
thought. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERYATION.  5 

C. — RANGE   OF   CONSCIOUSNESS. 

We  have  next  to  observe  that  these  facts  of  the  indi- 
vidual consciousness  necessarily  have  relation  to  a  world 
lying  beyond  the  range  of  the  individual's  immediate 
experience.  They  had  a  beginning  as  such  facts  of  con- 
sciousness, and  with  whatever  powers  we  may  regard  the 
mind  of  any  individual  man  as  endowed,  we  cannot  in- 
clude as  among  those  powers  the  ability  to  create,  out 
of  pure  nothing,  the  facts  which  go  to  make  up  its  own 
world  of  growing  consciousness.  If,  in  a  certain  sense, 
the  individual  consciousness  possesses  creative  powers, 
those  powers  can  still  be  regarded  as  creative  only  in 
the  sense  of  being  powers  of  transformation,  or  rather 
of  transfiguration.  It  reaches  out  to  a  world  "beyond 
itself,"  and  in  that  world  finds  material  which  it  seizes 
upon  and  appropriates  to  its  own  uses.  At  the  same 
time,  this  "  reaching  out "  is  but  a  self -expansion  of  the 
individual  consciousness  so  as  to  include  in,  and  assimi- 
late to,  its  own  inner  world  more  and  more  of  what 
previously  belonged  to  a  world  that  was  external  and 
apparently  alien  to  such  consciousness. 

And  yet  this  gradual  appropriation  by  the  individual 
consciousness  of  the  world  which,  at  the  outset,  lies 
beyond  such  consciousness,  could  not  take  place  at  all, 
if  that  world  were  wholly  an  alien  world.  Rather,  it 
demonstrates  that  the  world  lying  beyond  the  immediate 
range  of  the  individual  consciousness  is  still  in  vital 
relation  to  the  actual  present  facts  of  such  consciousness. 

The  limit  of  the  possible  experience  of  the  individual 
then  is  to  be  found  only  where  the  "outer  world"  ceases 
to  be  in  relation  to  the  world  of  consciousness  at  all. 


6  THE   WORLD-EKERGY 

It  is  only  because  the  unknown  is  fundamentally  related 
to  —  that  is,  possesses  the  same  nature  as  —  the  known, 
that  it  can  ever  be  transformed  into  the  known.  Just 
that  and  only  that  which  is  wholly  unlike  the  known, 
and  hence  wholly  incapable  of  ever  being  brought  into 
relation  with  the  known,  is,  with  the  utmost  ease  and 
certainty,  already  known  as  being  absolutely  "unknow- 
able." It  is  opposed  to  intelligence  in  its  very  nature, 
and  hence  may  be  at  once  "  recognized "  by  the  intelli- 
gence as  unknowable,  simply  because  of  its  sheer  vacuity, 
because  of  its  being  absolutely  void  of  any  characteristic 
through  which  it  can  or  could  ever  be  an  object  to  the 
intelligence. 

The  only  world,  then,  which  can  possibly  be  known,  or 
even  conceived  as  existing,  is  a  world  essentially  related 
to,  and  hence  possessing,  in  truth,  the  same  fundamental 
nature  as  the  knowing  self.  Such  would  seem,  at  this 
point,  to  be  the  natural  inference. 

There  is  suggested  here  also  this  further  inference : 
That  the  only  intelligence  I  can  ever  know  is  of  the  same 
fundamental  nature  as  my  own  intelligence.  For  I  could 
only  know  it  by  taking  up  its  modes  of  activity  into  my 
own  consciousness.  And  that  must  mean  that  thus  far 
the  modes  of  my  own  consciousness  are  the  same  as  the 
modes  of  that  intelligence  assumed  to  be  essentially  differ- 
ent from  my  own.  It  is  only  by  an  act  of  my  own  reason 
that  I  could  conceive  of  a  reason  as  different  from  my 
own.  But  in  the  very  act  of  conceiving  it  as  different 
from  my  own  I  must  pronounce  such  "  reason "  to  be 
unreason.  In  other  words,  such  conception  utterly  con- 
tradicts itself  and  thus  annuls  itself  in  the  very  process  of 
its  formation. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  7 

There  is  then  a  universal  ideal  or  type  of  intelligence 
to  which  every  particular  intelligence,  so  far  as  it  truly  is 
intelligence,  must  conform.  Whence  the  limit  of  possible 
development  for  each  individual  intelligence  is  nothing, 
less  or  else  than  the  total  round  of  facts  and  relations 
capable  of  being  justified  to  such  intelligence  as  an  abso- 
lutely rational  world. 

And  further,  since  the  universal  ideal  of  intelligence 
as  such  is  the  true  ideal  of  every  individual  intelligence 
realized  as  a  person,  it  would  seem  that  if  the  individual 
can  ever  trace  out  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  this 
universal  ideal  or  typical  nature  common  to  all  intelli- 
gences, he  will,  at  the  same  time,  trace  out  the  funda- 
mental nature  of  all  that  can  ever  appeal  to  reason  —  of  all, 
therefore,  that  can  be  conceived  as  pertaining  in  any  way 
to  a  rational  world.  In  other  words,  he  will  trace  out  the 
fundamental  system  of  the  only  knowable  —  that  is,  the 
only  possible — world. 

It  appears,  then,  that  all  looking  implies  a  looking 
within ;  all  investigation,  an  investigation  of  self ;  all 
judging,  a  judging  of  that  which  pronounces  judgment. 
All  seeing  is  double.  Every  act  of  the  mind  is  two-fold. 
It  seizes  upon  a  world  beyond  itself,  and  yet,  in  so  doing, 
identifies  that  world  with  itself ;  or  rather,  in  so  doing,  it 
discovers  an  essential  identity  as  already  existing  between 
that  world  and  itself. 

The  ultimate  range  of  consciousness  is  thus  seen  to  be 
commensurate  with  the  total  round  of  the  rational  world. 

d. —  SENSATION  THE  PRIMAKY   PHASE  OF  CONSCIOUSNESS. 

In  any  inquiry  into  the  nature  and  limits  of  the  exter- 
nal world,  then,  it  is  essential,  first  of  all,  to  consider  the 


8  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 

mode  in  which  such  external  world  comes  within  the 
range  of  the  individual  consciousness.  And  it  is  to  be 
remarked  that  the  simplest  phase  of  the  mind's  activity  is 
precisely  that  through  which  the  mind  comes  into  relation 
with  this  external  world.  That  the  experience  of  every 
individual  necessarily  begins  with  and  in  sensation,  is  a 
philosophic  truism.  It  is,  then,  of  the  first  importance  to 
ascertain  the  conditions  under  which  sensation  can  and 
must  take  place. 

It  is  evident,  first  of  all,  that  there  are  two  phases  of 
these  conditions.  The  one  phase  is  subjective — the  phase 
in  which  the  mind  itself  is  specially  considered.  The 
other  phase  is  objective —  the  phase  in  which  "objects/' 
in  the  sense  of  things  of  the  external  world,  are  specially 
attended  to.  Every  sensation  necessarily  implies  an  act  of 
an  individual  mind  and  also  an  object  other  than  such 
individual  mind,  which  yet  the  individual  mind  seizes 
upon.  Sensation  is  a  concrete  relation  between  subject 
and  object,  and  its  primary  condition  is  the  direct  "  con- 
tact "  between  the  two  factors  concerned. 

Of  this  concrete  relation  between  subject  and  object 
there  are  many  degrees.  It  is  that  degree  of  such  con- 
crete relation  in  which  the  subject  seizes  upon  the  object 
so  as  to  result  in  a  definite  and  more  or  less  abiding 
"impression"  or  "image"  in  the  mind  that  is  appropri- 
ately termed  perception. 

But  this  perception,  this  seizure  and  appropriation  of 
the  object  by  the  mind,  through  the  sensory  organs, 
implies  that  the  object  perceived  is  specially  characterized 
by  externality.  It  is  made  up  of  parts  which  are  outside 
one  another.  Whence  it  is  evident  that  the  object  of 
sensation  is  necessarily  in  space. 


AND  ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  9 

On  the  other  hand,  the  act  of  sensation  is  either  after 
or  before  other  such  acts.  That  is,  the  act  of  sensation  is 
necessarily  in  time. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  both  space  and  time  are 
necessary  conditions  of  sensation.  Without  these  condi- 
tions not  a  single  act  of  sensation  would  be  possible. 

We  have  accordingly  to  consider  the  precise  measure 
in  which  these  conditions  determine  all  our  sense-per- 
ceptions. 

1.  Space  as  a  condition  of  sensation. — The  object 
of  sensation,  as  being  extended,  is  necessarily  in  space. 
It  cannot  be  perceived  save  as  occupying  space.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  withdraw  atten- 
tion from  all  actual  objects  in  space  and  thus  think  of 
space  as  itself  mere  blank  extension.  Thus  we  come  to 
recognize  that  objectively  space  is  at  once  a  necessary 
condition  of  the  existence  of  bodies  and  a  relation  of 
body  to  body.  That  is  its  "reality."  Otherwise  it  is 
mere  boundless  nothing.  Remove  bodies,  and  you  remove 
the  one  positive  characteristic  of  space. 

But  space  is  not  merely  a  necessary  condition  of  all 
possible  objects  of  sensation.  This  fact  itself  is  dis- 
covered only  through,  as  being  necessarily  involved  in, 
the  further  fact  that  in  every  possible  sensation,  space  is 
necessarily  presupposed  as  a  fundamental  condition  of 
the  very  act  of  sensation  itself.  For  sensation  is  ever  a 
practical,  concrete  relation  between  a  sensitive  subject 
and  a  space-bounded  and  space-occupying  object.  And 
this  concrete  relation  completed,  shows  us  the  object  with 
its  space-characteristics  as  taken  up  into  the  conscious- 
ness in  the  form  of  an  "image,"  which  image  is,  in 
truth,  just  a  mode  of  the  mind,  of  which  the  outer 


10  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

" object"  has  been  merely  the  occasion.  But  the  image 
can  no  more  be  dissociated  from  space. than  can  the  object 
of  which  it  is  the  image.  In  any  sensation  there  is  an 
interfusion  of  a  given  subject  or  mind,  with  a  given 
object  or  definite  quality  of  matter,  and  the  product  of 
this  interfusion  is  an  "image."  So  that  while  the  image 
is  a  subjective  fact,  it  has  also  an  objective  origin.  It  is 
a  creation  of  the  mind  and  in  the  mind,  but  is  neverthe- 
less subject  to  the  limitations  characterizing  the  material 
out  of  which  it  is  created.  Act-of-sensation  and  object- 
of-sensation  are  the  necessary  complementary  factors  of 
every  possible  sensation.  Whence,  in  every  sensation,  as 
well  as  in  every  product  of  sensation,  both  subjective 
characteristics  and  objective  characteristics  necessarily 
inhere. 

Thus  space  is  seen  to  be  a  necessary  condition  of  both 
object  and  act  of  sensation.  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  it  is 
a  necessary  condition  of  the  object  of  sensation,  space  is 
objective;  while  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  necessary  condition  of 
the  purely  mental  act  of  sensation,  space  is  subjective. 
It  is  neither  exclusively  the  one  nor  exclusively  the  other, 
for  the  reason  that  it  is  both  the  one  and  the  other. 

The  objective  and  the  subjective,  let  us  repeat,  are 
but  complementary  aspects  of  every  knowable  —  that  is, 
of  every  possible — fact. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that,  considered  objectively, 
space  is  a  purely  negative  factor.  It  has  no  positive 
characteristics  or  properties.  It  is  pure  void,  and  as 
such  can  be  known  only  as  relation  of  externality  between 
object  and  object,  or  between  part  and  part  of  a  given 
object ;  though  this  latter  case  can,  of  course,  be  resolved 
into  the  former,  since  the  moment  one's  attention  is 


AKD   ITS   SELF-COKSEKVATIO^.  11 

explicitly  directed  to  the  parts  of  an  object,  those  parts 
become,  in  turn,  mutually  exclusive  objects  of  attention. 

Now,  as  pure  void,  space  can  have  no  limits.  For  any 
possible  boundary  of  space  could  only  be  the  limit  between 
the  given  space  and  another  space  on  the  other  side  of 
the  boundary.  Any  possible  limited  space  must  have 
geometrical  form.  But  every  geometrical  form  is  neces- 
sarily bounded  by  surfaces.  Nay,  a  surface  is  ever  to  be 
regarded  as  a  boundary  in  a  two-fold  sense,  if  we  are  to 
accept  the  guidance  of  mathematicians  by  whom  in  gen- 
eral, and  by  Professor  Clifford  in  particular,  a  surface  is 
denned  as  ' '  the  boundary  between  two  adjacent  portions 
of  space.  "* 

But  a  real  boundary — that  is,  a  surface  constituting  a 
transition  between  two  volumes  distinguishable  in  quality 
— can  have  no  reality  for  space  as  such,  since  space,  merely 
as  space,  possesses  and  can  therefore  present  no  positive 
difference  in  quality  by  which  one  space  or  portion  of 
space  can  be  distinguished  from  another. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  any  supposed  limit  of  space 
could  only  be  a  limit  in  space,  the  limit  having  objective 
reality  only  through  the  existence  of  some  object  occupy- 
ing space.  So  that  all  talk  of  a  possible  "curvature  of 
space"  is  at  once  chargeable  with  confounding  extension, 
as  the  universal  and  purely  negative  possibility  of  all 
physical  modes  of  existence,  with  a  particular,  positive, 
material,  extended  object  that  might  (and  must)  exist  in 
space,  but  could  never  coalesce  with  space. 

The  distinction  here  indicated  was  long  ago  pointed 
out  and  emphasized  by  Kant  in  his  "  Metaphysical 
Foundations  of  Natural  Science,"  where  he  speaks  repeat- 

*  "Common  Sense  of  the  Exact  Sciences  "  (N.  Y.  Ed.),  P  50. 


12  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

edly  of  "empirical  space/'  "relative  space/'  and  "mova- 
ble space."* 

Applying  such  terms  to  "  the  sum  total  of  all  experi- 
ence" for  the  sensuous  consciousness,  he,  at  the  same 
time,  emphasizes  the  absurdity  of  confounding  such 
"  empirical,  relative  space  "  (by  which  he  evidently  means 
extended  objects  in  general)  with  "pure,  non-empirical 
and  absolute  space/'  which  is  necessarily  presupposed  as 
the  universal  and  indispensable  negative  condition  of  — 
that  is,  total  absence  of  resistance  to  —  all  movement 
whatever. 

In  defining  space  as  such,  then,  we  can,  it  would 
seem,  use  no  other  than  negative  forms  of  expression. 
In  space,  pure  and  simple,  all  definite  dimension  is 
annulled.  It  is  true  that  space  presents  the  possibility  of 
all  dimension.  Space  is  formless,  and  hence  wholly  indif- 
ferent to  form.  But  just  for  that  reason,  space  is  —  in  a 
negative  sense  again  —  the  possibility  of  all  form.  That 
is,  it  has  no  characteristics  offering  any  opposition  to  the 
development  of  form.  Objects  are  said  to  be  "  in  space." 
At  the  same  time,  every  definite  —  that  is,  arbitrarily 
selected  —  portion  of  space,  however  large  or  however 
small,  is  still  an  "  outside  "  to  every  other  portion. 

It  is  further  evident  that  space  has  no  twternality  at 
all ;  for  that  would  imply  positive  or  real  characteristics  by 
which  one  portion  of  space  could,  on  its  own  account,  be 
distinguished  from  another  portion.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  only  through  our  sensations  of  objects  in  space  that  we 
can  distinguish  between  space  and  space,  or  ever  know 
anything  at  all  about  the  purely  negative,  empty  infinitude 

*See  Kant's  "Prolegomena,"  etc.  Translated  by  Belfort  Bax  (Bonn's 
Library),  p.  151,  and  elsewhere. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  13 

which  we  call  space.  For  we  can  only  know  space  as 
the  negative  of  body.*  It  is  not  even  true  that  space 
has  extension,  for  space  just  is  extension,  pure  and  sim- 
ple. That  is  its  one  positive  characteristic*  In  its  object- 
ive character,  it  is  nothing  else  than  indistinguishable, 
immovable,  boundless  externality.  It  is  the  pure  blank 
form  of  perfect  continuity.  No  power  can  quarry  out  a 
block  of  space  and  carry  it  away. 

Subjectively  considered,  on  the  other  hand,  space  is,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  pure  form  or  mode  of  all  possible  per- 
ceptions of  external  objects.  So  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
space  proves  to  be  a  universal  and  necessary  condition  of 
the  existence  of  all  possible  objects  of  sensation;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  seen  to  be  a  universal  and  necessary 
form  or  mode  of  the  subjective  fact  or  act  of  sensation 
itself. 

2.  Time  as  a  condition  of  sensation.  —  But  besides 
perceptions  of  external  objects,  there  are  perceptions  of 
changes  in  those  objects,  and  not  only  so ;  there  are  also 
perceptions  of  internal  states  of  consciousness  and  of 
transition  from  one  to  another  of  these  states. 

These  transitions,  however,  involve,  or  rather  are 
themselves  forms  of,  succession.  But  it  is  precisely  the 
relation  of  succession  that  constitutes  time.  Thus,  just 
as  no  object  can  be  perceived  except  as  in  space,  so  no 
change  in  a  perception,  implying  change  in  a  perceived 
object,  can  take  place  otherwise  than  as  in  time.  Time 

*  Strictly  speaking,  a  point  is  the  true  negation  of  space.  But  it  is  such 
merely  as  the  simplest  phase  of  limit ;  and  limit  can  be  realized  only  in  and 
through  body.  So  that  the  point,  which  is  the  abstract  negation  of  space, 
may  be  regarded  as  the  initial  phase  of  body  which  is  the  concrete  negation, 
that  is,  the  realization,  of  space.  In  other  words,  the  point  is  the  transition 
from  pure  to  empirical  space. 


14  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

is  thus  the  universal  form  of  all  succession,,  as  space  is 
the  universal  form  of  all  physical  co-existence. 

Transition,  in  short,  is  change — a  going  over  from  one 
state  to  anothe*.  But  this  takes  place  both  in  the  inner 
consciousness  and  also  in  the  outer  sensuous  object  of 
consciousness.  Thus  it  becomes  evident  that  time,  as  the 
universal  form  of  all  change,,  both  inner  and  outer,  is  also 
both  subjective  and  objective. 

Like  space,  too,  time  is,  merely  as  time,  an  abstraction 
pure  and  simple.  Just  as  we  could  never  become  con- 
scious of  space,  save  through  the  perception  of  objects  in 
co-existence,  so  we  could  never  become  conscious  of  time, 
save  through  the  perception  of  events  occurring  in  suc- 
cession. And  just  as  space  would  be  meaningless  save  as 
a  relation  of  object  to  object,  so  time  would  be  devoid  of 
meaning  save  as  a  relation  of  event  to  event.  Both  are 
purely  negative  factors,  and  yet,  with  their  utter  lack  of 
all  positive  characteristics^  they  are  precisely  the  factors 
in  our  perceptions  of  objects  and  changes  in  those  objects 
which  we  find  it  absolutely  impossible  to  eliminate  from 
our  perceptions. 

Neither  space  nor  time  can  be  perceived  by  the  senses, 
and  yet  it  is  alone  through  our  perceptions  that  we 
become  aware  of  space  and  time.  They  are  not  objects  of 
special  perception,  and  this  they  could  not  be,  for  they 
are  the  universal  forms  of  all  possible  perceptions.  It  is 
this  fact  that  lifts  the  conceptions  of  space  and  time  com- 
pletely out  of  the  domain  of  merely  empirical  knowledge. 

The  proposition,  "  Every  force  is  a  form  of  electricity," 
is  an  empirical  proposition  which  has  been  more  or  less 
definitely  affirmed  at  different  times  within  the  present 
century,  in  spite  of  the  somewhat  arbitrary  and  exclusive 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  15 

way  in  which  it  reduces  energy,  a  universal  mode  of  exist- 
ence, to  one  of  its  particular  phases.  'But  the  proposi- 
tion, "  Every  event  must  take  place  in  time,"  is  seen  upon 
reflection  to  be  necessarily  implied  in  every  single  instance 
of  the  perception  of  an  event.  For  it  would  contradict 
reason  itself  to  say  that  an  event  can  take  place  apart 
from  the  conditions  of  time. 

It  may  be  noted  finally,  that,  while  internal  or  subject- 
ive transitions  as  such  may  occur  within  the  limitations 
of  time  alone,  no  external  or  physical  change  can  take 
place  otherwise  than  as  conditioned  by  both  time  and 
space. 

6.  —  SENSE-PERCEPTION   FURTHER   IMPLIES   CONCEPTION. 

We  have  seen  that  space  and  time  are  the  universal 
and  necessary  modes  of  all  perception.  And  yet,  on  fur- 
ther examination,  perception  is  found  to  involve  as  one  of 
its  essential  factors  a  mode  of  mind  extending  beyond  the 
limits  of  perception,  as  such.  It  has  already  been  inti- 
mated that  every  phase  of  mental  activity  necessarily  pre- 
supposes a  two-fold  character.  We  have  now  to  note 
more  explicitly  that  even  the  simplest  perception  is  still 
a  highly  complex  fact.  For  the  sensuous  consciousness 
of  an  object  arises  not  merely  from  a  fixing  of  attention 
upon  a  given  object;  it  is  also  a  singling  out  or  selection 
of  that  object  from  among  an  indefinite  number  of  objects 
all  presenting  themselves  to  notice.  And  still  further,  it 
is  a  direct  reference  of  the  perceived  object  to  the  self  as 
perceiving. 

It  is  true  that  in  these  acts  of  selecting  objects  and 
referring  them  to  himself  as  a  conscious  unit,  the  individ- 
ual is  not  necessarily  aware  of  the  fact  that  he  is  making 


16  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

such  selection  and  reference.  Rather,,  in  common  experi- 
ence, the  process  goes  on  without  the  individuaFs  noticing 
the  details  of  the  process.  At  the  same  time,  however, 
reflection  shows  that  in  every  such  act  the  selection  itself 
is  necessary  in  order  that  the  perception  may  be  distinct, 
and  the  reference  of  the  object  to  the  self  is  necessary  in 
order  that  the  perception  may  exist  at  all.  And  thus 
again  the  receptivity  of  the  mind  in  perception  is  seen  to 
be  quite  as  definitely  active  as  passive;  or  rather,  it  is 
evident  that  passivity  is  but  receptivity,  or  reaction. 

But  now  this  reference,  whether  of  object  to  object,  or 
•of  an  object  to  the  self  (both  of  which  must  take  place  in 
every  act  of  perception),  implies  a  seizure  of  a  relation; 
and  this  seizure  of  relations  does  not  belong  to  perception 
as  such,  though  necessarily  involved  in  every  act  of  per- 
ception. The  office  of  perception  as  such  is  to  seize  par- 
ticular objects.  The  relation  of  object  to  object  can 
come  into  the  consciousness  in  no  other  way  than  through 
a  seizing  together  of  the  objects  related.  And  this  seizing 
together  of  objects  is  again  a  primary,  original  act  of  the 
mind  —  an  act  which  has  appropriately  come  to  be  called, 
in  English,  conception. 

Individual  sensuous  objects  are  perceived.  Relations 
can  only  be  conceived. 

But  now  let  us  note  that  this  relation  seized  through 
conception  is  a  relation  at  once  of  identity  and  of  differ- 
ence. A  number  of  objects  different  from  one  another 
are  yet  found  to  possess  some  characteristic  through 
which  they  are  all  similar  to  one  another.  The  several 
objects  could  not  be  seized  as  several  —  as  separate  — 
otherwise  than  through  the  seizure  of  their  difference. 
But  this  seizure  of  the  difference  separating  object  from 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  17 

object  is  itself  a  reference  of  those  objects  to  one  another. 
Their  severalty,  or  state  of  severance.,  can  not  be  compre- 
hended in  thought  save  through  a  corresponding  recog- 
nition of  their  unification  or  identity. 

In  other  words,  the  recognition  of  them  in  their  par- 
ticularity necessarily  implies  the  recognition  of  them  in 
their  universality.  These,  indeed,  are  but  complementary 
phases  of  every  possible  stage  of  knowing.  The  recogni- 
tion of  difference  between  objects  is  the  negative  reference 
of  those  objects  to  each  other — that  is,  the  recognition  of 
their  dependence  upon  one  another  in  that,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  the  one  has  what  the  other  lacks  and  lacks 
what  the  other  has.  On  the  other  hand,  the  recognition 
of  their  similarity  is  the  positive  reference  of  them  to  each 
other — that  is,  the  recognition  of  their  tendency  to  coa- 
lesce into  one  continuous,  independent  whole. 

The  negative  reference  of  object  to  object  is  the  basis 
of  the  recognition  of  multiplicity.  The  positive  reference 
of  object  to  object  is  the  basis  of  the  recognition  of  unity. 
Whence  it  is  evident  that  the  "one "and  the  "many" 
are  but  complementary  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  total. 

But,  let  us  repeat,  both  the  negative  and  the  positive 
reference  of  object  to  object  is  the  seizure  of  a  relation; 
and  while  the  seizure  remains  implicit  in  every  act  of  per- 
ception it  becomes  explicit  as  an  act  of  ^owception.  Thus 
perception  necessarily  implies  conception.  The  single 
object  cannot  be  seized  in  isolation.  The  seizure  of  it  as 
a  single  object  is  already  implicitly  a  seizure  of  it  in  its 
relations.  On  the  other  hand,  the  seizure  of  a  relation 
between  objects  necessarily  implies  that  the  objects  them- 
selves are  already,  in  that  very  fact,  perceived.  Whence  it 
is  evident  that  these  two  phases  of  the  mind's  activity — 


18  THE   WOELD-ENEEGY 

perception  and  conception  —  mutually  and  necessarily 
imply  one  another.  However  far  the  one  may  predomi- 
nate in  any  given  instance,  the  other  is  always  involved  in 
the  same  act.  Or,  as  somewhat  picturesquely  expressed 
in  a  phrase  attributed  to  Kant  *  (whom  we  are  here  sub- 
stantially following),  (i  Conceptions  without  perceptions 
are  empty.  Perceptions  without  conceptions  are  blind/'' f 

Nevertheless,  perception  is  of  a  distinctly  lower  rank 
than  conception  in  the  scale  of  the  mind's  modes  of  activ- 
ity. As  we  have  seen,  the  former  is  the  distinctive  mode 
by  which  particular  objects  are  taken  up  into  conscious- 
ness; while  the  latter  is  the  mode  by  which  the  more 
wide-reaching  result  is  obtained  of  bringing  into  clear 
definition  in  the  individual  consciousness  the  comple- 
mentary relations  of  identity  and  difference  necessarily 
involved  in  the  objects  which  appeal  directly  to  the 
senses.  So  that  mere  sense  perception,  so  long  as  it  pre- 
dominates as  such  in  the  activity  of  any  given  mind  and 
thus  includes  conception  only  in  its  implicit  phase,  is 
necessarily  a  very  inadequate,  superficial  stage  of  mental 
activity.  And  the  development  of  conception  into  its 
explicit  phase  as  the  dominating  mode  of  mental  activity 
is  essential  to  anything  approaching  adequate  knowledge, 
even  of  the  simplest  fact. 

Any  "  fact,"  indeed,  can  be  truly  known  in  no  other 
way  than  through  its  relations ;  and  it  is,,  let  us  repeat, 

*  I  have  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  in  the  study  of  Kant  to  the 
expositions  of  Dr.  W.  T.  Harris,  and  also  to  Professor  E.  Caird's  admirably 
clear  "  Critical  Account  of  the  Philosophy  of  Kant" 

t Kant's  own  expression  is:  Gedanken  ohne  Inhalt  sind  leer,  Anschau- 
ungen  ohne  Begriffe  sind  blind.  (Kritik,  der  reinen  Vernunft.—  Ed.  Harteu- 
stein.  S.  82.)  But  the  context  shows  that  the  form  given  above  — the  form 
used  by  Professor  Caird,  and  which  also  exactly  translates  the  words  used  in 
SchwegleVs  exposition  (Geschichte  der  Philosophic,  i2te  Auflage,  S.  191),— 
is  a  perfectly  accurate  rendering  of  Kant's  meaning. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  19 

only  through  the  power  of  conception  that  the  fact  can 
be  seized  in  its  relations  and  thus  thoroughly  compre- 
hended. This  remarkable  power  of  the  mind,  then, 
which  we  call  conception,  is  found  in  its  most  elementary 
character  to  be  a  subordinate  phase  of  perception.  And 
yet,  through  its  own  expansion  into  its  complete,  explicit 
significance  and  vigor,  it  transcends  perception,  includes 
and  subordinates  it,  and  proves  to  be  the  mode  of  activity 
by  which  the  outer  world  of  objects  and  relations  is 
brought  together  or  comprehended  as  a  harmonized,  uni- 
fied whole,  completely  within  the  grasp  of  the  mind.* 

/.  —  PRIMARY    UNITY     OF     SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. 

It  will  now  be  desirable  to  bring  into  more  explicit 
statement  the  significant  fact  already  more  than  once 
referred  to  :  That  in  every  act  of  knowing,  whether  that 
act  be  predominantly  perceptive  or  predominantly  con- 
ceptive,  there  is  necessarily  involved  not  merely  a  refer- 
ence, implicit  or  explicit,  of  object  to  object ;  but  also  a 
reference  of  every  object  to  a  self  as  perceiving  and  as 
conceiving.  Thus  every  possible  act  of  knowing  necessa- 
rily implies  a  self-reference  as  the  fundamental  character- 
istic of  the  individual  consciousness. 

Knowing  is,  first  of  all,  ^//"-knowing  —  a  knowing- 
together,  as  the  word  consciousness  itself  implies.  And 
this  collectedness  and  vital  unification  of  knowing  in 
selfhood  has  been  further  emphasized  among  English- 
speaking  people  in  the  term  se^-consciousness.  It  is, 

*It  will  be  noticed  that  the  term  conception  is  here  used  in  a  sense  so 
wide  as  to  include  thought — an  extension  of  meaning  not  without  prece- 
dent, and  not  without  psychological  justification.  For  just  as  conception  is 
implicit  in  every  act  of  perception,  so  thought,  properly  speaking,  is  implicit 
in  every  act  of  conception.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  the  expression  "to 
conceive,"  meaning  "  to  think." 


20  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

indeed,  precisely  in  self-consciousness  that  every  possible 
phase  of  knowing  must,  in  the  first  place,  take  its  rise, 
and  in  the  outcome  find  its  culmination.  Nay,  the  self  is 
in  truth  the  fundamental,  vital  unity  actually  constitut- 
ing the  whole  manifold  series  of  perceptions  and  concep- 
tions that  take  shape  in  the  individual  consciousness. 

It  is,  therefore,  nothing  more  than  a  truism  to  say 
that,  apart  from  this  unity,  the  series  could  never  be 
known,  either  as  a  whole  or  in  its  parts  ;  for  without  the 
unity  the  series  could  have  no  existence.  The  unity  oi 
self  is  the  universal  which,  at  first  abstract,  brings  itself 
into  concrete  realization,  through  its  own  activity  dis- 
played in  the  development  of  the  manifold  particular 
phases  of  perception  and  conception. 

Underlying  all  knowledge,  then  —  nay,  rather  consti- 
tuting the  very  core  of  all  knowledge  —  is  the  primary,  or 
rather  primordial,  unity  of  self -consciousness. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  unity  is  far 
from  being  a  simple,  abstract,  empty  unity.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  dual  and  triple,  nay,  infinitely  manifold. 
First,  as  that  which  knows,  it  is  subject;  secondly,  as  that 
which  is  known,  it  is  object;  and  thirdly,  as  that  which  in 
its  very  nature  is  self-known,  it  is  subject-object,  which 
also  necessarily  implies  infinite  complexity. 

This  indeed  is  substantially  the  standpoint  of  all  mod- 
ern philosophy.  Descartes,  the  founder  of  modern  philoso- 
phy, finds  the  ultimate  ground  of  certitude  in  self-refer- 
ence. "I  think,  therefore  I  am."  I,  who  think,  first  of 
all  know  myself  as  thinking;  and  so  long  as  this  conscious 
self-reference  continues,  I  am  absolutely  assured  in  that 
very  fact  of  my  own  existence.  I  can  indeed  conceive  of 
an  object  as  having  existence,  and  yet  as  being  destitute 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  21 

of  consciousness.  But  I  find  it  absolutely  impossible  to 
conceive  of  a  consciousness  that  yet  has  no  existence. 

It  may  indeed  prove,  in  the  sequel,  that  every  phase  of 
existence  implies  intelligence  or  consciousness;  but  it  is 
manifest  without  further  demonstration  that  every  phase 
of  consciousness  explicitly  and  of  necessity  involves  exist- 
ence. Thus  it  appears  that  consciousness  is  the  wider, 
richer  term,  and  involves  existence.  And  it  may  be  that 
perfect  consciousness  is  precisely  the  highest  term  of  exist- 
ence, that  it  is  just  another  name  for  self -existence.  So 
that  existence  not  otherwise  defined,  is  vastly  the  poorer, 
more  abstract,  and  hence  subordinate  term. 

Self-consciousness,  then,  appears  to  be  the  root  from 
which  every  branch  of  knowledge  springs.  If  I  turn 
"  experimentalist,"  and  apply  myself  to  the  acquisition  of 
knowledge  of  external  things,  here  too,  as  I  have  seen, 
every  step  imperatively  demands,  absolutely  cannot  be 
taken  without,  the  reference  of  all  to  self.  Every  fact, 
however  simple  or  however  complex,  must  inexorably  be 
tested  by  reference  to  laws  which  I  find  in  my  own  con- 
sciousness —  laws  which  I  find  it  impossible  to  think  of 
as  undergoing  change.  For  change  itself  is  meaningless, 
save  in  so  far  as  it  is  referred  to  the  permanent,  to  the 
changeless,  as  the  standard  of  judgment. 

Nor  will  it  avail  here  any  better  than  elsewhere  to  take 
refuge  in  the  mists  of  "  relativity."  For  the  "  relatively 
permanent "  must  in  the  outcome  ever  prove  to  be  some- 
thing undergoing  change.  Such  standard  is  therefore  in 
its  very  nature  self-contradictory,  since  a  changing  stand- 
ard can  be  in  truth  no  standard  at  all. 

This  truth  is  verified  —  that  is,  empirically  "  proven" 
—  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life.  In  so  far  as  standards  of 


22  THE   WORLD-ENEKGY 

value  fluctuate,  they  cease  to  have  reality  as  standards. 
It  is  rightly  assumed  that  the  value  of  the  changing  can 
be  estimated  only  in  comparison  with  that  which  is  abso- 
lutely unchanging,  with  that  which  is  permanent,  in  the 
ultimate  and  legitimate  sense  of  the  term.  Even  stand- 
ards of  weights  and  measures  are  assumed  to  be  unchang- 
ing. Not  a  single  transaction  in  commerce,  nor  an  exper- 
iment in  science  ever  occurs  that  does  not  involve  this 
assumption.  Otherwise,  indeed,  no  sane  people,  and 
therefore  no  people  at  all,  would  exist  to  pursue  .either 
commercial  or  scientific  or  any  other  interests. 

To  this  it  need  only  be  added  here  that  any  change  in 
consciousness  that  is  not  subordinated  to  the  unity  and 
therefore  permanent  identity  of  consciousness  could  be 
nothing  else  than  a  complete  break  in,  and  hence  the  utter 
annihilation  of  consciousness.  And  this  is  as  much  as  to 
say  that  consciousness,  in  its  universal  character,  in  its 
ideal  nature  or  type,  can  never  undergo  any  change. 
Underlying  the  unity  of  the  self,  and  constituting  its 
fundamental  characteristic,  is  the  law  of  self-consistency, 
which  may  be  stated  in  the  following  form :  Perfect  con- 
sistency in  consciousness  is  the  ultimate  and  absolute 
ground  of  all  certitude. 

By  this  standard  every  "  fact "  must  be  accepted  or 
rejected,  every  "  theory  "  approved  or  condemned.  Here 
is  the  ultimatum  of  "  experimental,"  as  of  all  science.  It 
is  upon  the  results  of  the  supreme,  inner  experiment 
which  thought  performs  upon  thought  that  all  knowledge 
must  ultimately  rest. 

Thus  while  all  really  systematic,  scientific  research 
begins  with  the  outer  or  physical,  it  culminates  and 
must  ever  culminate  in  the  inner  or  spiritual.  And  while 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  23 

these  two  phases  or  fields  of  investigation  may  appear  to 
be  mutually  exclusive,  they  in  reality  merge  into  one 
another;  so  that  the  physical  may  be  rightly  described  as 
the  initial  phase  of  the  spiritual,  the  spiritual  as  the 
maturity,  the  fulfilment  of  what  is  only  vaguely  inti- 
mated in  the  physical. 

On  one  side  our  knowledge  depends  upon  sensuous 
experience ;  on  another  side  it  transcends  that  phase  of 
experience  ;  while  finally  it  coincides  with  experience  in 
the  widest,  richest  meaning  which  the  term  experience 
can  have.  Knowledge  is,  in  truth,  the  very  core  of 
experience,  and  experience  is  but  the  unfolding  or  outer 
realization  of  knowledge.  Experience  is  practical  knowl- 
edge ;  knowledge,  theoretical  or  reasoned  experience. 

Evidently,  then,  sensuous  experience  is  neither  all  nor 
the  best  experience.  Bather,  the  best  experience  is  that 
which  realizes  with  the  most  perfect  consistency  the 
greatest  extent  and  degree  of  truth.  That,  doubtless,  is 
the  most  "practical"  way  of  life  which  serves  best  to 
symmetrically  unfold  the  spirit  into  the  concrete  reali- 
zation of  all  its  powers. 

Once  more,  then,  the  sensuous  is  seen  to  be  the  poor- 
est, least  adequate  phase  of  experience,  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  but  the  simplest,  most  rudimentary  phase  thereof ; 
while  "experience,"  in  its  truth  and  completeness,  is 
just  the  total  process  of  the  development  of  man  in  the 
entire  compass  of  his  nature. 

All  genuine  knowledge  is,  in  truth,  experimental. 
There  can  be  no  other.  If  experimental  science  has  its 
initial  point  in  the  discovery  of  physical  relations,  it  has 
its  culmination  in  the  discovery  of  the  higher  relations 
unfolded  in  the  world  of  thought. 


24  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

g. THE    LAWS   OF   THOUGHT. 

The  " necessary  laws  of  thought"  are  nothing  else 
than  the  technical  presentation  in  three  abstract  proposi- 
tions, expressing  successively,  with  greater  explicitness, 
the  conviction  above  set  forth,  namely:  That  perfect 
consistency  in  consciousness  is  the  ultimate  and  only 
absolute  ground  of  certitude. 

The  law  of  identity  declares  that  "whatever  is,  is." 
Regarded  formally,  this  is  pure,  empty  tautology.  But 
the  statement  also  contains  implicitly  the  deepest  signifi- 
cance. It  declares  in  effect  that  existence  is  absolute  and 
uniform.  Already  in  the  fifth  century  before  the  Chris- 
tian era,  this  truth  was  felt,  and  Parmenides  sought  to 
give  it  utterance  in  his  dictum  that  "Being  alone  is  and 
non-being  is  not."  Aristotle  also  reaffirmed  it  in  his 
representation  of  the  "  Unmoved  mover  of  the  world," 
while  in  the  modern  world  it  reappears  in  the  affirmation 
that  the  total  quantity  of  matter  or  of  energy  can  never 
be  either  increased  or  diminished. 

Thus  the  first  law  of  thought  is,  in  germ,  the  doctrine 
of  the  conservation  of  energy.  It  implies  that  existence 
can  never  be  changed  into  non-existence,  nor  the  latter 
into  the  former.  So  far  as  existence  itself  is  concerned, 
there  is  neither  past  nor  future,  but  only  a  ceaseless, 
changeless  present. 

This  law  is,  then,  the  law  of  consistency  under  the 
form  of  absolute  continuity.  The  truly  existent,  how- 
ever great  its  complexity,  however  much  of  mutual  oppo- 
sition there  may  possibly  be  between  its  various  multi- 
form phases,  can  still  never  contradict  itself.  The  law,  as 
stated,  says  nothing  whatever  as  to  whether  multiplicity 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  25 

is  or  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  existence.  It  simply 
affirms  existence  as  changelessly  one  with  itself. 

Nevertheless,  this  is  but  vaguely  intimated  in  the  law 
of  identity,  which  thus  proves  to  be  sufficiently  ambigu- 
ous. And  yet,  as  already  shown,  the  formula  may  be  fairly 
interpreted  as  meaning  that  whatever  is  cannot  cease  to 
be,  and  still  more,  that  whatever  is  cannot,  at  the  same 
time,  not  be. 

Thus  the  first  law  of  thought,  when  unfolded  into  the 
negative  form,  is  found  to  involve  also  the  second  law,  or 
the  law  of  contradiction,  which,  in  truth,  only  empha- 
sizes and  aids  in  rendering  explicit  the  law  of  identity. 
The  law  of  contradiction  declares  that  "  anything  can- 
not both  be  and  not  be."  And  this  is  simply  an 
advanced  form  of  the  law  of  consistency. 

Nor  does  this  advanced  form  of  the  law  of  consistency 
exclude  the  dialectic  of  change  inhering  in  all  things 
finite.  This  is  sufficiently  evident  even  in  the  form 
just  quoted,  and  which  is  the  form  in  which  the  law  of 
contradiction  is  more  commonly  stated.  But  still  less 
does  this  law  exclude  change  when  stated  in  the  form 
given  it  by  Aristotle,  namely:  To  Y&P  «"™  «/*«  onapxeiv 

xal   fjiij    U7!:dp%£iV)   dduvarov   rw    aoroj    xard   TO   auro.        f{  It    IS 

impossible  that  precisely  the  same  phase  of  reality  should 
both  begin  and  not  begin  at  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  sense."  * 

Thus  stated,  Aristotle  declares  the  law  of  contradic- 
tion to  be  the  "most  firmly  established  of  all  first  princi- 
ples." And  as  he  makes  this  statement  immediately 
following  the  declaration  that  the  philosopher  must  come 
provided  with  a  first  principle  that  is  "independent  of 

*  "Metaphysics,"  Lib.  III.  (IV.),  cap.  III. 


26  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

hypothesis,"  it  is  evident  that  he  regarded  this  as  the 
primal  law  of  the  reason,  and  as  such  necessarily  self-evi- 
dent in  its  truth. 

With  such  assurance  from  such  a  thinker,  then,  one 
may  well  be  encouraged  to  inquire  with  care  and  diligence 
whether  there  may  not  be  something  more  in  this  law, 
even  in  the  form  ordinarily  given  it,  than  the  shallow, 
contradictory  abstraction  which,  as  simply  the  negative 
power  of  the  law  of  identity,  it  has  been  represented  by 
Hegel  as  being.  *  When  it  is  declared  that  A  can  not  be 
both  A  and  not  A,  it  is  implied  in  the  very  form  of  the 
statement  that  A  may  be  either  A  or  not  A,  according  as 
it  is  siibjected  to  this  or  that  set  of  conditions.  It  is  sim- 
ply declared  that  the  two  affirmations,  "  A  begins  "  and 
"  A  does  not  begin,"  could  not  possibly  both  be  true  at 
the  same  time  and  in  the  same  sense. 

But  if  A  possesses  any  definiteness,  that  is,  any  reality, 
then  so  far  as  the  characteristics  of  A  are  determined  by 
any  given  set  of  conditions  undergoing  change,  A  must 
necessarily  change  as  the  conditions  change,  and  in  so 
doing  must  thus  far  necessarily  become  not  A.  For 
example,  with  sufficient  increase  of  temperature,  a  given 
portion  of  carbon  now  constituting  a  diamond  may  be 
vaporized  and  combined  with  oxygen;  the  resulting  car- 
bon-dioxide may  be  decomposed  through  absorption  into  a 
vegetable  organism,  the  carbon  that  was  diamond  now 
becoming  woody  fiber,  to  undergo  still  further  trans- 
formation, perhaps  into  coal,  etc.,  etc. 

Thus  the  same  group  of  carbon  particles  may  be  both 
diamond  and  not  diamond.  But  if  by  this  declaration  it 
is  meant  that  both  these  mutually  exclusive  states  can  be 

*."  Werke"  (ate  Auflage),  VI.,  230. 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSERVATIOK.  27 

assumed  at  the  same  time,  by  the  same  group  of  particles, 
it  can  be  true  only  in  a  special  sense.  If  true  in  the  same 
sense  it  can  be  only  in  different  times.  At  the  moment 
when  the  particles  constitute  diamond  in  reality,  they  can 
at  that  moment  be  said  to  constitute  not-diamond  (woody 
fiber,  coal,  etc.)  only  in  the  sense  of  potentiality.  Or,  in 
general  terms,  any  given  quantity  of  matter  can  be  in  one 
and  only  one  state  at  one  and  the  same  time;  so  that, 
whatever  the  number  of  states  possible  for  such  given 
quantity  of  matter,  those  states  can  be  realized  by  and  for 
it  only  serially,  or  through  successive  periods  of  time. 

Thus  the  law  of  contradiction  might  also  be  called  the 
law  of  consistency  as  exhibited  in  the  actual  world — the 
law  of  precision  in  the  modes  of  existence. 

It  would  seem  then  that  the  true  significance  of  the  law 
of  contradiction  is  rather  this:  First,  that  whatever  the 
forms  successively  assumed  by  any  portion  of  substance, 
that  portion  of  substance,  through  whatever  transforma- 
tions it  may  pass,  still  exists  absolutely,  and  is  wholly 
excluded  from  non-existence  in  the  sense  of  mere  nothing- 
ness; secondly,  throughout  its  transformations  a  given 
portion  of  substance  can  as  a  unit  assume  at  any  given 
moment  but  one  consistent  grouping  of  its  parts,  from 
which  it  follows  that  no  two  contrary  descriptions  could 
be  true  of  it  at  the  same  time.  It  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  our  conception  of  the  existent  that  it  should  assume 
all  possible  forms  of  existence;  but  it  is  wholly  inconsist- 
ent with  that  conception  to  suppose  that  the  existent 
in  any  of  its  possible  aspects  should  ever  become  utterly 
null  or  non-existent. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  too,  that  while  the  law  of  identity 
would  seem  on  first  view  to  exclude  change,  and  while  it 


28  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

does  exclude  change  from  existence  as  a  whole,  yet  the  law 
of  contradiction,  which  is  but  a  more  explicit  form  of 
stating  the  same  truth  as  that  contained  in  the  first,  dis- 
tinctly assumes  change  to  be  perpetual  for  every  finite 
form  of  existence.  Any  given  thing  is  perpetually  in  pro- 
cess, and  can  <( begin/'  at  any  given  moment,  in  this  or 
that  particular  phase  of  the  process  only. 

The  first  law  declares  the  permanence  and  continuity 
of  existence  as  a  whole.  The  second  law  declares  that  the 
particular  aspects  of  existence  are  in  a  ceaseless  process. 

Again  let  us  regard  A  as  a  symbol  of  the  totality  of 
all  that  exists.  Then  it  becomes  evident  that  while  all 
change  is  involved  in  A,  there  can  never  by  any  possibility 
be  any  change  of  A. 

We  find  ourselves  thus  contemplating  that  absolute 
Identity  which  includes  all  possible  difference  within 
itself.  Here  the  seemingly  negative  law  of  contradiction 
is  found  to  negate  the  non-existent  absolutely,  and  thus 
to  be  the  positively  developed  form  of  the  law  of  identity 
in  that  it  is  the  absolute  affirmation  of  all  reality. 

The  "law  of  excluded  middle"  finally,  announces  that 
the  existent  and  the  non-existent  exhaust  the  possibilities 
of  thought.  "  A  thing  must  either  be  or  not  be; "  there 
is  no  third  or  "  middle "  possibility.  Whatever  is,  not 
only  must  T>e,  but  must  be  in  a  state  of  perfect  definiteness. 

The  first  law  of  thought  affirms  positively  that  what 
exists  is  self -consistent;  the  second  affirms  the  same  thing 
negatively  in  declaring  that  the  existent  cannot  contradict 
itself,  either  by  being  at  the  same  time  non-existent,  or  by 
presenting  the  same  portions  of  itself  at  the  same  time 
under  mutually  exclusive  forms;  while  the  third  law 
reaffirms  absolutely  the  self-consistency  of  the  existent  as 
being  necessary. 


ITS   SELF-CONSERVATIOK.  29 

Rightly  understood,  then,  these  laws  are  valid  and 
vital  as  the  laws  of  thought.  They  affirm  under  a  pro- 
gressive series  of  forms  the  primordial  law  of  perfect  con- 
sistency in  consciousness  as  the  absolute  test  of  certitude.* 
They  are  "  necessary  laws,"  not  in  the  sense  in  which 
Professor  Jevons  seems  to  think  that  expression  must  be 
understood,  namely,  in  the  sense  that  they  are  "laws 
which  cannot  but  be  obeyed;"!  but  rather  in  the  sense 
that  one's  thinking  must  inevitably  be  self -contradictory 
in  just  so  far  as  it  fails  to  be  in  conformity  with  those 
laws.  They  are  the  laws  in  accordance  with  which  one 
must  think  if  he  is  to  think  truly.  The  order  of  the  only 
world  we  can  ever  really  know  is  the  order  of  reason,  of 
self -consistency.  And  this  is  a  "  necessary  "  order,  in  the 
sense  that  it  can  never  change  without  destroying  itself. 
Whence  no  thinking  can  really  be  true  thinking  —  that 
is,  self-consistent  thinking — -unless  it  follow  this  law  of 
the  inner  necessity  of  reason  itself. 

Doubtless  it  is  in  this  sense  that  one  ought  to  under- 
stand the  remark  of  Hegel  that,  "  True  thinking  is  the 
thinking  of  necessity."  J 

A. — THE  LAWS  OF  THOUGHT  ARE  THE  LAWS  OF  THJNGS. 

It  is  certainly  not  without  significance  that  while  these 
laws  are  named  the  laws  of  thought,  they  are  neverthe- 
less formulated  as  the  laws  of  things.  At  first  view  this 
seems  a  radical  inconsistency.  And  yet  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily so.  They  are  rightly  named  "laws  of  thought," 
because,  as  has  just  been  pointed  out,  they  are  the  three 

*This  appears  to  me  to  summarize  the  aspects  of  truth  involved  in  the 
three  laws  of  thought;  though  Prof.  Jevons  expresses  doubt  as  to  the  possi- 
bility of  such  summary  statement.  "Principles  of  Science,"  (3d  ed.)  p.  6. 

t  Ibid,  p.  7.  t  "  Logic  of  the  Encyclopedia,"  §  119. 


30  THE   WOELD-ENEEGY 

essential  forms — positive,,  negative  and  infinite  (or  abso- 
lute)— under  which  the  primary  law  of  the  necessary 
unity  and  self-consistency  of  thought  may  be  presented. 
But  they  are  equally  the  laws  of  things,  since  the  only 
"things"  with  which  thought  can  really  deal,  and  hence 
the  only  things  concerning  which  affirmations  possessing 
any  real  significance  can  be  made,  are  the  facts  of  the 
world  such  as  they  present  themselves  in  consciousness ; 
that  is,  in  thought.  But  thus  presented  in  conscious- 
ness, these  facts,  so  far  as  they  are  really  facts  for  the 
individual,  are  just  the  perceptions  and  conceptions 
which  the  individual  has  formed  in  his  own  mind. 

No  doubt  any  given  perception  has  taken  place  in  any 
given  mind  only  in  consequence  of  certain  stimuli  which 
such  mind  has  received  from  outer  "things."  But  to 
say  this,  is  only  to  describe  another  conception  which  the 
individual  has  formed  concerning  the  conditions  under 
which  perceptions  and  conceptions  in  general  can  arise  in 
his  mind.  That  is,  while  such  statement  emphasizes 
the  fact,  that  in  one  sense,  we  can  never  get  beyond  our 
own  perceptions  and  conceptions,  and  that  thus  all  our 
knowledge  seems  purely  subjective ;  yet  the  very  con- 
sciousness of  these  subjective  states  necessarily  involves  a 
reference  of  them  to  some  external  exciting  cause  and 
thus  proves  that  knowledge  is  no  less  objective  than  sub- 
jective in  its  nature. 

It  is  especially  worthy  of  note  in  this  connection,  too, 
that  even  in  the  ordinary  use  of  language  it  is  the  sub- 
jective phase  of  mental  activity  that  is  called  thought, 
while  the  objective  aspects  of  that  activity  are  denomi- 
nated "things."  And  again,  this  implicit  rationality  of 
the  ordinary  consciousness  is  developed  into  more  explicit 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  31 

form  by  the  psychologist,  who  points  out  the  fact 
that  the  only  " objects"  which  we  can  ever  know  are 
in  reality  our  own  perceptions  of  what  seems  to  us  to 
be  objects  lying  beyond  and  independent  of  us  and  of 
our  perceptions. 

The  complementary  relation  between  thought  and 
things  thus  indicated,  is  made  still  more  evident  if  we  fol- 
low out  the  clue  and  consider 

i. — THE    VARIOUS    ASPECTS    OF    IDEALISM. 

The  first  aspect  of  idealism  is  that  in  which  the  ideal- 
ist presents  himself  in  his  subjective,  most  elementary 
stage  of  development.  In  this  stage  he  puts  his  own 
interpretation  upon  the  fact  to  which  the  psychologist 
has  drawn  attention.  "Yes,"  he  declares,  "the  only 
'  things '  I  can  ever  know  are,  indeed,  just  my  own  states 
of  consciousness.  That  is  the  only  real  world  for  me, 
and  hence  for  me  the  only  true  world.  What  I  really 
think,  that  is  true  for  me  and  the  only  truth.  Allowing 
the  existence  of  an  ' objective'  world,  I  can  never  know  any- 
thing of  its  real  nature  and  can  not  even  find  any  valid 
proof  of  its  existence.  So,  also,  allowing  the  existence 
of  other  minds,  their  convictions,  however  valid  for  them, 
can  have  no  significance  for  me,  to  whom  there  can  be  no 
truth  apart  from  my  own  mental  states." 

Such  is  the  standpoint  of  what  may  be  called  sub- 
jective idealism,  pure  and  simple  ;  or,  as  it  has  commonly 
been  known  since  the  time  of  the  later  Greek  thinkers, 
it  is  the  standpoint  of  sophistry.  It  has  appeared  again 
and  again  with  more  or  less  elaborateness  and  subtlety  of 
form  and  presenting  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  substan- 
tial truth. 


THE   WOELD-E^EKGY 

But  such  one-sided  view  could  not  but  be  confronted 
by  its  opposite — that  is,  by  objective  idealism*  Naturally, 
too,  the  latter  is  marked  by  distrust  of  the  ' '  human  intel- 
lect "  and  its  powers.  "Speculation"  is  regarded  as  idle 
and  mischievous.  If  one  is  ever  to  put  himself  in  posses- 
sion of  the  truth,  he  must  abandon  the  absurd  effort  to 
find  it  in  the  empty  depths  of  his  own  consciousness,  and 
must  turn  his  attention  to  the  real  objective  world.  It  is 
in  the  world  of  nature  alone  that  one  can  hope  to  find 
continuity,  consistency,  truth.  Here  the  "ideal"  is  that 
of  an  outside,  solid,  material  world.  It  is  of  a  world 
already  given,  but  given  one  knows  not  how. 

Doubtless  the  investigator  in  this  field  would  prefer  to 
be  known  as  a  realist;  and  indeed  the  "speculations" 
that  inevitably  force  themselves  into  formulation  here  as 
elsewhere  do  lead  up  to  a  very  lofty  phase  of  idealism 
which  has  been  named  (by  Herbert  Spencer)  "trans- 
figured realism.''  And  yet  this  transfigured  realism  is 
itself  a  speculative  or  ideal  representation  of  the  object- 
ive world,  as  that  world  is  conceived  to  be  in  its  essence. 

Finally,  there  comes  a  third  idealist  and  appeals  in 
turn  to  each  of  the  other  two.  To  the  subjective  ideal- 
ist he  says:  "You  have  abandoned  reason  and  in  its 
place  have  substituted  caprice.  You  are  right  in  declar- 
ing that  thought  is  all  one  can  know;  but  radically  wrong 

*The  reader  familiar  with  the  history  of  philosophy  will  notice  the 
difference  between  the  use  here  made  of  these  terms  and  that  given  them  in 
Germany  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century.  At  the  same  time  I  cannot 
but  think  that  the  crude  form  of  subjective  idealism  specially  referred  to  in 
the  text  is  in  reality  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  initial  aspect  of  what  in 
its  subtler  form  develops  into  such  theories  as  that  of  Berkeley;  or  even,  in 
another  direction,  into  theories  like  that  of  Fichte.  It  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  add  that  the  "  objective  idealism  "  here  referred  to  is  that  (apparently  for 
the  most  part  unconscious)  aspect  of  idealism  involved  in  the  current  move- 
ment in  natural  science. 


AND    ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION.  33 

in  your  assumption  that  the  mere  private,  and  very  likely 
wholly  undisciplined,  thinking  of  the  individual  is  the 
only  attainable  form  of  thought,  or  that  it  is  necessarily 
true  thought  at  all.  If  the  thinking  of  each  individual  is 
the  truth  for  him,  then  there  can  be  no  truth  at  all,  since 
the  untrained  mind  makes  no  effort  to  avoid  contradictory 
thought,  nor  does  it  even  recognize  the  fact  that  contra- 
dictions are  constantly  arising  in  its  own  thinking.  And 
yet  thought  can  only  be  true,  as  thought,  in  so  far  as  it  is 
consistent  with  itself.  The  contradiction  of  thought  by 
thought  must  be  the  utter  negation  of  thought ;  that  is, 
must  prove  that  what  was  taken  for  thought  is  in  reality 
not  thought  at  all. 

"  If,  therefore,  you  are  sincere  in  your  search  for  truth, 
you  must  recognize  that  your  standpoint  is  one-sided  and 
superficial,  and  therefore  requires  to  be  supplemented  and 
deepened  through  fusion  with  another  element.  That 
element  is  the  objective  phase  of  thought.  Thought,  as 
such,  is  universal  and  necessary  in  its  nature.  It  is  abso- 
lutely consistent  and  unchanging.  That  is  the  funda- 
mental characteristic  of  thought ;  and  because  no  sub- 
jective caprice  which  you  or  I  may  entertain  can  ever,  in 
the  least,  affect  this  fundamental  nature  of  thought,  as 
such,  the  latter  may  very  properly  be  called  objective  or 
true  thought,  in  contrast  with  our  own  subjective,  often 
self-contradictory,  and  in  such  case  necessarily  untrue 
thought. 

"I  readily  admit,  and  with  you  emphatically  declare, 
that  it  is  only  by  our  own  individual  thinking  that  we,  as 
individuals,  can  reach  any  conclusion  at  all.  But  I  also 
declare,  with  no  less  confidence,  that  we  must  ever  and 
inevitably  be  led  to  the  conclusion  I  have  just  been 


34  THE   WOKLD-EISTEBGY 

stating,  if  we  carefully  put  our  individual  thinking  to  the 
crucial  test  of  self-criticism.  For  self-criticism  must  ever 
culminate  in  the  clear  recognition  of  the  fundamental  law 
of  perfect  consistency  in  consciousness  as  the  absolute, 
unchanging,  and  hence  objective  test  of  certitude  as  to  the 
truth  in  any  given  case  of  inquiry.  It  is  only  when  the 
thinking  of  the  individual  unfolds  into  this  objective 
character  that  it  becomes  genuine,  true  thinking/' 

So,  again,  this  third  idealist  will  appeal  to  the  idealist 
of  the  second  type,  and  say  to  him:  tf  Admirable  as  are 
your  work  and  the  results  of  your  work,  there  is,  never- 
theless, a  phase  of  your  method  that  remains  as  yet  almost 
wholly  implicit ;  and  this  fact  proves  at  times  to  be  the 
occasion  of  serious  error.  You  say  rightly  that  truth  is 
to  be  attained  only  through  a  searching  examination  of 
the  objective,  real  world.  But  you  seem  to  have  not  suf- 
ficiently regarded  the  fact  that  the  only  way  by  which  a 
real  knowledge  of  the  '  objective '  or  outer  world  can  be 
attained  is  through  the  exertion  of  your  own  subjective  or 
inner  powers.  You  are  thus  led  to  look  upon  the  object- 
ive world  as  something  independent  of  your  own  mind,  or 
even  as  independent  of  mind  in  any  and  every  sense.  So 
that  when  you  discover  necessary  laws  in  ( nature'  you 
not  only  regard  the  necessity  of  those  laws  as  a  '  natural ' 
necessity,  but  also  make  the  unwarrantable  assumption 
that  f natural'  is  synonymous  with  ' physical/  And 
yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  can  scarcely  fail  to  admit, 
upon  reflection,  that  ' natural'  means  the  same  as 
t  rational/  if  it  means  anything.  For  whatever  contra- 
dicts reason,  the  reason  cannot  but  regard  as  unnatural; 
and  it  is  only  through  reason  that  we  can  pronounce  upon 
this,  or,  indeed,  upon  any  question  whatever. 


AND    ITS   SELF-COKSERVATION.  35 

"  Do  but  remember  that  the  '  nature '  in  the  study  of 
which  you  find  such  delight,  and  whose  orderliness  and 
symmetry  you  have  so  superbly  demonstrated,  is  by  no 
means  all  there  in  space  —  is  by  no  means  objective  merely 
in  the  sense  of  being  outer  and  foreign  to  mind  ;  but 
rather  that  it  is  '  objective '  in  the  sense  of  being  the 
embodiment  of  consistency,  of  necessary  truth,,  and  hence 
as  involving  mind  or  reason  as  its  very  essence.  Indeed, 
with  every  advance  in  your  investigation  of  nature,  you 
develop  more  and  more  conclusive  proofs  that  nature  is 
an  embodiment  of  '  laws '  that  justify  themselves  to  the 
trained  reason  as  possessing  universal  and  necessary 
validity. 

"  Thus  there  is  constantly  increasing  ground  for  confi- 
dence in  the  justice  of  the  maxim  which  virtually  under- 
lies all  your  work.  And  we  may  well  go  to  nature  and 
trust  to  the  guidance  of  its  "facts"  if  we  would  find  the 
truth.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
that  we  should  know,  as  precisely  as  possible,  both  the 
character  and  the  extent  of  the  significance  which  the 
maxim  contains. 

"And,  on  careful  examination,  this  appears  evident 
enough.  Thus  the  maxim  implies  that  truth  is  in 
Nature,  and  that  the  truth  thus  embodied  is  not  beyond 
the  reach  of  thought.  For  it  is,  indeed,  only  through 
thought  that  we  can  go  to  nature,  or  '  go  '  anywhere  in 
search  of  truth. 

"If,  indeed,  nature  were  something  wholly  distinct 
from  thought,  then  the  proposal  to  go  to  nature  in  order 
to  find  the  truth  would  imply  that  thought  must  abso- 
lutely go  beyond  itself  to  find  the  truth.  In  which  case 
thought  must  itself  appear  to  be  something  untrue.  At 


36  THE   WORLD-E^EKGY 

the  same  time,  taken  in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  term, 
the  demand  that  thought  should  'go  beyond  itself '  is 
wholly  self -contradictory,  and  therefore  destitute  of  mean- 
ing. It  is  only  when  taken  in  a  special,  limited  sense  that 
the  expression  is  found  to  be  consistent  and  to  possess 
real  significance.  Thus,  the  '  thought '  of  the  individual 
human  mind,  considered  in  the  sense  of  the  actual  state 
of  consciousness  of  a  given  person  at  any  given  moment, 
may  indeed,  be  developed  or  '  expanded '  into  greater  com- 
plexity and  consistency.  But  it  can  do  this  only  because 
it  already  contains  implicitly  in  itself,  as  its  own  funda- 
mental nature,  objective  universality  and  truth. 

"In  so  far,  then,  as  the  individual  consciousness  devel- 
ops or  ' expands"  itself,  it  is  only  harmonizing  or  iden- 
tifying its  real  self  with  its  ideal  or  true  self.  That  is, 
in  'going  beyond  itself  it  is  merely  going  beyond  its 
present  immature,  untrue  self,  and  in  so  doing  is  coming 
to  its  substantial,  universal,  true  self. 

' '  But  now,  you  who  insist  upon  the  truth  that  the 
total  quantity  of  energy  forever  remains  unchanged,  must 
admit  that  the  individual  human  mind  has  no  power  to 
produce  out  of  pure  nothing  any  phase  of  reality  what- 
ever, least  of  all  the  richest  of  all  phases  of  reality — 
realized  reason  itself.  The  human  mind  doubtless  has  the 
power  to  discover  and  transform,  but  not  the  power  to 
create,  in  the  sense  of  producing  something  which  abso- 
lutely had  no  existence  before.  So  that  every  step  by 
which  the  individual  mind  'goes  beyond  itself  as  an 
imperfect  embodiment  or  realization  of  reason,  implies  of 
necessity,  that  both  the  phases  of  reason  already  reached, 
and  also  all  the  phases  possible  to  le  reached,  by  such  mind 
must  already  possess  perfected  and  permanent  realization 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  37 

in  the  universe  as  a  whole.  Otherwise  the  growth  of  the 
individual  as  a  power-to-think,  must  ultimately  involve 
a  change  in  (and  of)  the  total  quantity  of  energy. 

"But  thus,  again,  it  becomes  evident  that  wherever 
the  individual  as  a  power-to-think  can  'go/  there  thought 
is  of  necessity  already  present  in  realized  form.  The 
'  where '  of  thought  proves  to  be  just  the  total  round  of 
the  possible  modes  of  thought  itself ;  which  modes,  to  be 
possible  at  all,  must  be  already  realized  in  the  universe 
as  a  whole.  Whence  it  appears  that  the  thought  of  the 
individual  can  '  go '  to  nature  on  this  one  condition 
alone:  that  thought,  in  its  universal  character,  is  already 
there  present  and  realized  in  nature. 

"  You  would  separate  nature  from  thought  as  if 
nature  were  something  objective  and  thought  a  merely 
subjective  process.  And  this  is  right  as  far  as  it  goes. 
But  it  remains  only  a  half-truth  until  supplemented  by 
the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  term  the  only  possible  objects  of  thought  are  pre- 
cisely thought  itself,  and  the  modes  of  thought  in  their 
manifestations. 

"And,  in  truth,  your  maxim  really  conforms  to  this 
view.  For  our  examination  of  it  has  already  shown  sub- 
stantially that  the  thought  of  the  individual  can  go  to 
nature  only  on  the  condition  that  thought  in  at  least 
some  of  its  essential  modes  is  already  there  in  nature. 
But  thought  can  only  be  'in'  nature  by  being  fused 
with  nature. 

"I  submit,  therefore,  that  this  is  the  real  truth  of 
the  case:  Nature  is  the  external  and  thought  the  internal; 
internal,  that  is,  in  the  sense  that  thought  is  the  inner, 
vital  principle,  which  manifests,  unfolds,  utters  or  outers 


38  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 


in  nature.  So  that,  nature  is  '  object '  not  in 
the  sense  of  being  external  to  thought,  but  rather  in 
the  sense  that  it  is  the  externalization  of  thought.  It 
is,  in  short,  as  a  mode  of  thought,  and  only  as  a  mode 
of  thought,  that  nature  is  accessible  to  intelligence  in 
any  degree  whatever. 

"Thus,  it  appears  that  the  separation  between  nature 
as  object,  and  mind  as  subject,  is  valid  only  in  so  far 
as  concerns  the  experience  of  this  or  that  individual 
mind.  To  the  untrained  mind  nature,  and  still  more, 
all  the  more  complex  modes  of  thought,  are  quite 
foreign  or  external.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  untrained 
mind  '  goes  to  nature '  and  expands  its  own  powers  into 
fuller  realization,  it  approaches  more  and  more  nearly 
to  the  apprehension  of  that  great  truth  that,  in  the  final 
outcome,  subject  and  object  are  but  the  necessary  com- 
plementary phases,  not  merely  of  each  individual  human 
mind's  experience,  but  also  that  they  are  the  necessary 
complementary  phases  of  the  one  only  world  or  universe. 

' '  On  this  view  it  is  perfectly  '  natural '  (i.  c.  rational) 
that  on  the  one  hand  the.  individual  mind  in  its  investi- 
gations of  nature  should  discover  .everywhere  in  nature 
the  most  beautiful  manifestations  of  the  law  of  consist- 
ency, harmony,  continuity,  rational  system;  and  that 
on  the  other  hand  the  testing  and  verifying  this  dis- 
covery should  lead  at  length  to  the  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  this  law  is,  in  truth,  one  and  the  same  with  the  law 
of  consistency,  harmony,  continuity,  rational  method 
underlying  the  very  nature  of  thought  itself. 

(( Thus  the  laws  of  thought  and  the  laws  of  the  only 
things  that  can  ever  be  known  by  thought  prove  to  be 
identical.  And  the  truth  is  to  be  attained,  not  by  an 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  39 

exclusively  '  subjective '  method,  as  if  one  could  exhaust  the 
possibilities  of  thought  by  a  mere  examination  of  his  own 
inner  consciousness;  nor  by  an  exclusively  ' objective' 
method,  as  if  one  could  possess  himself  of  the  whole  or 
even  the  highest  phase  of  truth  by  a  mere  examination  of 
that  outer  world  of  appearances  occupying  space,  and 
which  is  commonly  called  '  nature.'  On  the  contrary,  the 
truth,  in  its  vital  reality,  is  to  be  attained  only  through 
a  complete  blending  of  these  two  methods;  that  is, 
through  a  constant  recognition  of  the  true  relation 
between  the  outer  and  the  inner,  between  the  objective 
and  the  subjective,  as  the  mutually  complementary  modes 
of  existence  in  its  ultimate  reality  and  perennial  vigor  as 
the  ever-living  truth/' 

Such  would  be  the  appeal  of  our  third  idealist,  who,  as 
insisting  upon  this:  that  the  absolute  fusion  of  the  sub- 
jective and  the  objective  is  the  truth  alike  of  things  and 
of  the  method  of  inquiry  concerning  things,  proves  to 
be  the  representative  of  absolute  idealism. 

And  because  this  mode  of  viewing  the  world  appears 
to  bring  us  to,  or  at  least  to  point  us  toward,  the  ultimate 
equilibrium  of  thought,  it  is  the  mode  of  view  which  we 
would  hope  to  maintain  in  all  our  further  investigations. 

What  follows  in  the  present  volume  is  an  attempt  to 
develop  dialectically  the  fundamental  characteristics  of 
nature.  This  logical  process  of  thought  in  the  investiga- 
tion of  nature  leads  up  to  a  conclusion  in  which  there  is 
found  to  be  represented  the  logical  presupposition  of 
nature.  Our  final  discovery  is  the  primal  Fact. 


CHAPTER    II. 

"MATTER"  AND   ITS  PROPERTIES. 

T~N  the  introductory  chapter,  it  has  been  shown  that 
-•7  every  object  of  sense-perception  must  necessarily 
occupy  space.  It  must,  in  other  words,  be  extended. 
We  come,  then,  to  ask,  in  the  next  place  :  What  is  the 
necessary  significance  of  this  characteristic  inhering  in 
the  matter  of  sense-perception  ? 

a. — RESISTANCE    OR     REPULSION. 

To  answer  this  question,  we  have  but  to  reflect  that 
our  impression  of  an  object  as  extended  is  due  primarily 
to  the  resistance  which  the  object  offers  to  our  activity. 
Without  such  resistance  we  could  never  even  know  that 
the  object  exists. 

But  the  resistance  which  an  object  presents  to  our 
activity  necessarily  implies  that  the  parts  of  which  the 
object,  as  a  whole,  is  composed,  must  themselves  be  mutu- 
ally resistant.  I  attempt  to  compress  a  given  object.  I 
feel  the  object  as  resisting.  That  is,  the  object  presents 
itself  to  my  consciousness  as  resistance. 

Thus  the  object,  as  object  of  perception,  is  not  only, 
by  that  fact,  necessarily  extended,  and  hence  made  up  of 
mutually  exclusive  parts ;  but  this  very  mutual  exclusion 
is  found  to  be  realized  under  the  form  of  mutual  resist- 
ance. The  entire  body  resists  my  efforts  to  compress  it, 
because  the  parts  of  which  the  body  is  composed  resist 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  41 

any  effort,  either  to  bring  them  into  mutual  mclusion,  or 
to  alter  their  positions  relatively  to  one  another. 

In  other  words,  while  the  mutual  resistance  of  the 
component  parts  of  a  body  would  seem,  on  first  view,  to 
be  a  merely  positive  characteristic,  consisting  of  the  sim- 
ple action  of  a  force  from  the  center  outward,  it  really 
proves,  on  further  examination,  to  be  quite  as  much  neg- 
ative as  positive.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  body  holds 
together  in  a  given  positive  form,  but  also  that  each  com- 
ponent part  excludes  every  other  part.  And  in  this 
respect  the  parts  or  particles  are  negative,  as  toward 
one  another,  and  thus  give  to  matter  the  negative,  or 
at  least  negatively  named,  characteristic,  of  impenetrabil- 
ity. That  is,  so  far  as  we  regard  matter  merely  under 
the  aspect  of  resistance,  it  is  evident  that  we  can  have  no 
doubt  of  the  impossibility  of  any  two  bodies  ever  occupy- 
ing the  same  space  at  the  same  time. 

Apparently,  then,  the  truth  of  anything  I  can  know  as 
a  body  is  found  in  the  characteristic  of  resistance,  or, 
otherwise  named,  repulsion.  And  yet  I  have  but  just 
noticed  that  the  resistance  which  any  given  body  offers  to 
any  effort  I  may  make  to  change  its  form  consists  in  part 
of  the  resistance  which  the  parts  composing  the  body  pre- 
sent to  any  change  in  their  positions  relatively  to'  one 
another.  But  this  can  only  mean  that  the  parts  are 
positively  connected  with  one  another,  that  they  hold  fast 
upon  one  another  so  as  to  hinder  my  efforts  to  bring 
them  into  a  relatively  different  position.  That  is,  they 
attract,  as  well  as  repel,  one  another. 

Besides,  were  the  negative  characteristic  of  repulsion 
the  sole  truth  of  bodies,  we  must  be  driven  to  a  conclu- 
sion wholly  at  variance  with  the  very  idea  of  body.  For 


42  THE   WOKLD-ENERGY 

unrestrained  repulsion,  as  between  all  portions  of  matter 

—  between  the  smallest,  no  less  than  between  the  largest 

—  absolute  continuity  of  repulsion  must  have  the  effect  to 
infinitely  diffuse  each  body  through  space.     Whence,  not 
only  must  every  particular  body  lose  all  outline  or  boun- 
dary,  and  thus    contradict  the  conception  of    body  as 
something  both  extended   and   also  limited ;  but   every 
particular  body  must  thus  penetrate  every  other  body 
completely,  and  hence  occupy  the  same  space  at  the  same 
time.     In  other  words,  there  would  be  but  one  uniformly 
diffused  mass,  which,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  infinite  pene- 
trability, must  forever  remain  wholly  unknown  to  us. 

It  appears,  then,  that  a  "  matter "  which  should 
consist  solely  of  resistance  must,  by  that  very  fact,  be 
infinitely  diffused,  and  hence  infinitely  penetrable,  or 
absolutely  non-resistant.  And  this  is  the  same  as  to  say 
that  the  conception  of  matter  as  consisting  solely  of  resist- 
ance is  a  self -contradictory  conception  —  a  conception 
wholly  at  variance  with  the  law  of  consistency,  the 
central  law  of  all  thought  and  of  all  reality  that  can  ever 
be  known  by  thought. 

Our  conclusion  is,  then,  that  though  mere  resistance 
may  be  the  truth  of  matter  as  extended,  it  is  far  from 
being  the  whole  truth  of  matter. 

We  have,  then,  to  make  this  further  inquiry  :  What  is 
the  real  truth  involved  in  the  conception  of  resistance  ? 

We  have  certain  impressions,  to  the  objective  phase  of 
which  we  give  the  name  "body,"  or  "matter."  And  for 
us  body  or  matter  consists  of  a  resistance  which  we  name 
repulsion.  We  cannot  account  for  these  impressions  in 
any  other  way.  And  yet,  thus  accounting  for  them,  we 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  43 

find  ourselves  involved  in  contradiction.     From  this  con- 
tradiction we  are  to  seek  a  way  of  escape. 

In  doing  so,  let  us  assume  any  series  of  particles,  as : 

(1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5) 

If  repulsion  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  matter, 
then  each  of  these  particles  must  repel  every  other  in  the 
series.  Hence  (3)  repels  (2)  and  (1)  on  one  side,  and  (4) 
and  (5)  on  the  other  side.  But  each  of  these  repels  (3) 
in  turn.  That  is,  repulsion  is  a  relation  of  reciprocal 
action.  One  particle  cannot  repel  the  other  without 
being  in  turn  repelled  by  it.  Indeed,  there  can  be  no 
exertion  of  force  in  any  direction  except  in  so  far  as  there 
is  opposition  or  resistance  from  that  direction.  There 
can  be  no  push  without  something  to  push  against  —  no 
action  without  a  corresponding  reaction.  And  the  degree 
of  force  actually  exerted  in  either  direction  will  depend 
upon  the  degree  of  force  actually  exerted  in  the  opposite 
direction.  So  that,  no  matter  what  possibility  of  force 
there  may  be  in  (3),  it  can  actually  repel  (2)  only  in  so 
far  as  it  is  repelled  by  (2).  And  the  same  is  true  of 
whatever  pair  we  may  consider. 

But  (3)  repels  (2)  not  merely  by  its  own  isolated 
power  of  repulsion  (setting  aside  for  the  moment  the  ques- 
tion of  the  possibility  of  such  isolated  power),  but  also 
with  the  added  impetus  which  it  receives  from  the  repulsion 
exerted  upon  it  by  (4)  and  (5).  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
not  only  do  (1)  and  (2)  mutually  repel  each  other,  but  also 
that  (2)  is  actually  driven  toward  (1)  by  the  cumulative 
repulsions  between  itself  and  (3),  (4)  and  (5). 

It  is  true  that  while  (4)  and  (5)  repel  (2)  through 
(3),  they  also  repel  (1)  through  both  (3)  and  (2);  so 


44  THE  WOKLD-EKEBGY 

that  it  would  seem  as  if  (1)  must  be  driven  from  (2)  still 
more  powerfully  than  (2)  is  driven  toward  (1).  At  the 
same  time,  however,  it  must  be  remembered  that  (1)  is  the 
limiting  particle  of  the  series  on  one  side.  As  such  its 
repulsion  for  (2)  and  for  the  remaining  particles  in  the 
series  must  be  less  than  that  of  (2)  for  those  remaining 
particles.  For  the  repulsion  of  (2)  for  (3),  (4)  and  (5) 
is  intensified  by  the  repulsion  between  (1)  and  (2),  which 
thrusts  (2)  back  upon  (3),  but  only  to  be  the  more  pow- 
erfully urged  toward  (1)  again. 

Thus  the  tendency  of  the  repulsion  between  (2)  and 
the  particles  of  the  series  beyond  (2)  is  to  cause  an  actual 
approach  of  (2)  toward  (1).  And  it  is  to  be  also  noted,  at 
the  same  time,  that  the  repulsion  between  (1)  and  (2) 
counteracts  in  a  measure  the  tendency  toward  separation 
between  (2)  and  (3) ;  and  so  throughout  the  series. 

But,  again,  it  has  already  been  incidentally  observed 
that  each  intermediate  particle  in  the  series  exerts  its 
repulsion  in  two  precisely  opposite  directions.  In  the  case 
of  (3),  indeed,  these  repulsions  in  opposite  directions 
must  balance  each  other.  Hence,  (3)  is  the  point  of 
equilibrium  in  the  series.  And  it  is  to  be  noticed  especially 
that  the  repulsion  of  this  middle  particle  for  those  on  either 
side  presents  this  peculiar  aspect :  that  in  thus  exerting  its 
power  of  repulsion  in  opposite  directions,  it  necessarily 
concentrates  upon  itself.  And  this  brings  to  explicit  utter- 
ance the  truth  that  no  particle,  under  any  conditions 
whatever,  can  push  outward  in  any  direction  from  itself 
save  by  pressing  in  upon  itself  in  the  same  act. 

Repulsion,  then,  even  in  so  inadequate  an  example  as 
the  one  assumed,  proves  to  be  something  more  than  a  mere 
tendency  toward  indefinite  diffusion.  Instead  of  being 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  45 

merely  a  more  explicit  phase  of  externality,  of  matter  as 
the  extended,  it  proves  to  be  a  tendency  toward  concen- 
tration as  well,  and  hence  to  involve  internality  no  less  than 
externality.  And  this  will  become  only  the  more  apparent 
the  more  concretely  it  is  viewed. 

Imagine  the  particles  in  such  series  as  that  above  repre- 
sented to  be  retained  in  the  same  relative  positions,  and 
the  whole  revolved  about  the  central  one  in  such  way  that 
the  several  other  particles  shall  describe  concentric  circles 
in  the  same  plane.  It  is  evident  that  every  possible 
diameter  of  the  circles  thus  described  has  been  repre- 
sented in  succession  by  the  line  joining  the  series  of  par- 
ticles, and  that  the  same  relations  would  be  true  in  every 
position  assumed  by  the  series. 

If,  now,  the  distances  of  (1)  and  (2)  from  (3)  in  the 
original  series  be  assumed  to  be  different  from  the  distances 
separating  (4)  and  (5)  from  (3),  then  we  should  have  four 
circles,  each  with  a  material  circumference  about  a  com- 
mon material  center.  In  such  case  it  is  evident  that  the 
complexity  of  relations  must  be  vastly  multiplied,  since 
the  repulsions  will  be  exerted  not  merely  between  the 
members  of  each  series  in  any  given  diameter,  but  also 
between  each  member  of  each  series,  and  every  member 
of  each  and  all  the  other  series  as  well. 

But,  again,  let  us  imagine  each  diameter  to  be  rendered 
material  throughout  its  whole  length  through  the  further 
multiplication  of  particles.  We  should  then  have  a  con- 
tinuous disc,  involving  still  further  complication  of  repul- 
sions and  counter-repulsions — the  lines  of  relation  running 
out  from  each  particle  to  every  other  particle  in  the  whole 
disc,  and  thus  forming  a  most  minutely  complicated  web 
of  relations. 


46  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

And  yet,  once  more,  suppose  the  disc  itself  to  be 
revolved  about  one  of  its  diameters.,  so  as  to  describe  a 
sphere.  The  described  sphere  would  be  a  material  one, 
such  that  every  section  through  a  great  circle  of  the 
sphere  would  present  a-  set  of  relations  identical  with 
that  of  the  revolved  disc.  We  should  then  have  not 
merely  an  indefinite  repetition  of  the  web  of  relations 
existing  in  the  disc,  but  also  a  wholly  new  and  immeasur- 
ably more  complicated  network  of  relations,  consisting  of 
lines  of  repulsion  between  each  particle  and  every  other 
particle  throughout  the  entire  sphere.  Each  particle 
would  be  repelled  by  every  other  particle;  that  is,  every 
particle  within  the  sphere  would  be  repelled  in  all 
directions.  Hence  it  would  be  driven  toward  as  well 
as  from  every  other  particle.  And,  still  further,  each 
particle,  as  exerting  repulsion  in  all  directions,  is  driven 
in  upon  itself  from  all  sides;  so  that  the  more  intense 
and  complicated  the  repulsion  exerted  by  it,  with  only 
so  much  the  greater  energy  must  it  concentrate  upon 
itself. 

Finally,  let  the  sphere — since  there  is  no  necessary  limit 
to  its  volume — be  regarded  as  co-extensive  with  space ; 
that  is,  let  it  be  regarded  as  infinite.  The  repulsion  of 
part  for  part  would  then  necessarily  react  in  such  way  that 
the  tendency  to  concentration  would,  in  the  total  quantity 
of  matter,  exactly  balance  the  tendency  toward  expansion. 
In  other  words,  the  " repulsion"  must  prove  in  its  very 
development  as  repulsion  to  constantly  unfold  into  its  own 
opposite,  and  to  be  in  its  very  nature  attraction  no  less  than 
repulsion.  For  "attraction"  is  the  name  we  give  to  the 
inherent  tendency  of  matter  toward  aggregation  or  con- 
centration upon  itself. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  47 

And  here  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  not  only  is  there  no 
necessary  limit  to  the  ultimate  "  sphere/'  or  total  volume 
of  matter  in  the  universe;  in  reality  it  would  seem  that 
no  such  limit  is  possible.  For,  on  the  assumption  that 
such  limit  existed,  the  particles  of  matter  at  the  surface 
would  then  be  bounded  on  one  side  by  pure  space.  That 
is,  in  all  directions  from  the  center  there  would  be  repul- 
sion outward,  which  would,  indeed,  on  first  view,  seem 
to  develop  itself  into  attraction  about  the  center  of  the 
sphere.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  at  the  surface  there 
would  be  complete  absence  of  reaction;  that  is,  there 
would  be  absolutely  no  resistance  to  the  thrust  outward 
from  the  center.  Hence  the  sphere  must  go  on  expand- 
ing indefinitely  through  space,  and  result  at  length  in 
the  complete  dissipation  of  whatever  energy  may  be 
allowed  to  have  been  accumulated,  by  whatever  incom- 
prehensible means,  upon  the  supposed  center  in  past 
time. 

Thus  I  find  that  in  reality  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
conceive  that  any  definite  portion  of  " matter"  should 
be  so  aggregated  as  to  present  a  definite  surface  and  an 
appreciable  resistance  (through  which  alone  I  could  ever 
become  conscious  of  its  existence)  otherwise  than  upon 
the  condition  that  the  total  volume  of  matter  is  co-exten- 
sive with  s]face;  that  is,  upon  the  condition  that  the  total 
quantity  of  matter  is  infinite. 

It  appears,  then,  that  every  portion  of  matter  exists, 
not  merely  on  its  own  account,  but  also  and  necessarily — 
that  is,  in  its  very  nature  —  for  every  other  portion  of 
matter.  It  has  just  been  seen  that  resistance — the  primary 
characteristic  of  the  objects  of  sense-perception  —  proves 
this  to  be  true.  And  the  conviction  that  such  is  the 


48  THE   WORLD-ENEKGY 

case  —  a  conviction  arrived  at,  apparently,  by  no  very 
explicit  dialectic  —  lias  long  since  become  general  under 
the  form  of  the  "  impenetrability  "  of  matter,  which  term 
is  defined  as  meaning  that  " no  two  portions  of  '  matter' 
can  occupy  the  same  space  at  the  same  time." 

It  is  especially  important  to  notice,  too,  that  though 
presented  in  the  negative  form,  the  definition  is  expressed 
as  having  universal  and  absolute  validity.  If  no  two 
portions  of  matter  can  occupy  the  same  space  at  the  same 
time,  then  we  but  alter  the  mode  of  statement  in  saying 
that  every  portion  of  matter  is  necessarily  related  as  repel- 
lant  to  every  other  portion  of  matter  —  that  every  portion 
of  matter  exists  not  merely  by  itself,  or  in  isolation,  but 
also  for  all  other  portions  of  matter ;  that  is,  in  essential 
relation  to  them.  Nor  is  the  mutual  repulsion  of  all 
portions  of  matter  for  one  another  a  merely  negative  rela- 
tion. It  is  also,  as  we  have  seen,  a  positive  relation  or 
connection,  which  we  can  only  name  attraction. 

If  again,  we  still  further  consider  the  nature  of  repul- 
sion, it  is  evident  that  this  universal  characteristic  or 
property  of  matter  is  essentially  a  strain  of  separation. 
And  yet  a  strain  in  one  direction,  let  us  repeat,  necessarily 
implies  a  strain  in  the  opposite  direction.  Already,  in 
the  very  conception  of  repulsion  between  two  bodies, 
there  is  necessarily  implied  that  the  bodies  ai^  related  to 
each  other  positively  as  well  as  negatively.  For  the  fact 
that  the  action  of  a  force  is  required  to  separate  them,  or 
to  widen  the  already  existing  separation  between  them, 
necessarily  presupposes  that  there  is  already  in  action  a 
force  drawing  them  toward  each  other.  Repulsion  would 
therefore  be  absolutely  meaningless  were  there  not  con- 
stantly presupposed  in  it  its  own  correlative  phase  of 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  49 

force,  that  is,  attraction.  And  in  tracing  the  dialectic  of 
repulsion  we  have  seen  how,  in  its  own  activity  as  repul- 
sion, it  necessarily  develops  into  its  own  opposite,  that  is, 
into  attraction.  Thus  it  would  seem  that  either  of  these 
two  modes  of  force  is  wholly  unthinkable  apart  from  the 
other.  They  appear  to  be  but  different  aspects  of  one  and 
the  same  force  or  energy.  And  this  becomes  only  the 
more  evident  as  we  trace  out  the  dialectic  of  attraction 
from  the  assumption  that  it  is  an  independent  mode  of 
force. 

1. — ATTRACTION. 

Throughout  the  scientific  world  attraction  is  con- 
stantly referred  to  as  if  it  were  regarded  as  pre-emi- 
nently the  one  universal  mode  of  force.  And  in  some  of 
its  phases  it  does  seem  to  act  quite  independently.  It  will 
be  well,  then,  to  examine  it  in  its  seeming  independence. 

Objects  of  sense-perception  present  definite  boundaries, 
and  we  have  seen  that  they  offer  resistance  to  any  force 
tending  to  compress  them.  But  they  also  offer  resistance 
to  efforts  made  to  change  their  shape,  or  to  divide  them. 
Evidently  then  the  particles  hold  fast  upon  one  another — 
attract  each  other. 

Thus  at  once  it  comes  to  light  that  the  resistance  which 
a  body  offers  to  pressure  is  due,  not  merely  to  the  repul- 
sion of  its  particles  for  one  another,  but  also  quite  as  much 
to  the  relation  of  attraction  between  them  holding  them  in 
fixed  relative  positions.  So  that  the  impenetrability  of 
bodies  proves  to  be  a  repulsion,  which  in  large  measure 
has  its  truth  in  attraction.  If  I  press  a  piece  of  moist 
clay  between  my  fingers  it  yields,  not  because  of  the  lack 
of  repulsion  between  the  particles  in  the  immediate  line 


50  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

of  resistance,  but  rather  because  of  the  feeble  attraction 
between  particles  in  other  directions. 

But  let  us  trace  out  the  nature  of  attraction  in  the  same 
way  as  that  in  which  we  examined  into  the  nature  of 
repulsion.  Assume  the  same  series  of  particles,  and 
regard  them  now  under  the  aspect  of  attraction.  Remem- 
ber also  that  attraction,  to  be  attraction  at  all,  must  be 
mutual.  No  relation  can  be  wholly  one-sided. 

Each  particle  in  the  series,  then,  attracts  and  is  in  turn 
attracted  by  every  other.  Applying  this  in  detail,  (3) 
evidently  stands  in  the  relation  of  mutual  attraction  with 
(1)  and  (2)  on  one  side,  and  with  (4)  and  (5)  on  the  other. 
But  in  this  double  relation  it  is  drawn  at  the  same  time 
in  contrary  directions.  And  since  the  drawing  is  partly 
its  own,  it  draws  itself  in  contrary  directions. 

But  this  drawing  in  contrary  directions  thus  proves  to 
be  an  opposition  of  the  particle  against  itself,  tending  to 
separate  it  from  itself.  So  that  the  middle  point  of  the 
central  particle  as  the  "  center  of  gravity"  of  the  whole 
series  is  precisely  the  point  where  gravity  cancels  itself 
and  becomes  null ;  or  rather  it  is  the  point  where  gravity, 
or  attraction,  undergoes  transformation  into  its  own  oppo- 
site, that  is,  into  repulsion.  And  this  must  be  true  in 
greater  or  less  degree  of  every  intermediate  particle  in 
any  series,  since  such  intermediate  particle  must,  in  the 
very  fact  of  its  being  intermediate,  be  drawn,  and  hence 
must  draw  itself,  in  opposite  directions  at  the  same  time. 

Thus  attraction  proves  to  involve  not  merely  the 
approach  of  particles  toward  each  'other,  but  also  their 
separation  from  each  other  —  nay,  it  involves  with  each 
and  every  particle  a  tendency  toward  separation  from 
itself.  For  every  particle  situated  between  two  other 


AND   ITS   SELF-COKSEEVATION.  51 

particles  is,  we  have  seen,  necessarily  drawn,  and  even  nec- 
essarily draws  itself,  in  opposite  directions  ;  and  thus  the 
particle  inevitably  tends  toward  its  own  infinite  division. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  repulsion 
which  a  particle  exerts  in  opposite  directions  must  have 
the  effect  to  concentrate  such  particle  upon  itself. 

In  further  consideration  of  attraction  we  need  hardly 
do  more  than  mention  briefly  that,  as  before,  our  single 
series  of  particles  may  be  conceived  a^revolved  about  the 
middle  one,  so  as  to  form  a  series  of  concentric  circles  in 
the  same  plane,  while  these  circles  may  be  conceived  as 
having  their  perimeters  made  up  of  actual  particles,  thus 
forming  circular  bands,  through  which  every  diameter 
will  present  the  same  conditions  as  the  series  we  have  just 
considered.  Thus  at  the  same  time  we  should  have  the 
additional  attractions  between  each  particle  in  each 
series,  and  every  particle  in  every  other  series,  with  the 
same  results  of  counteraction  and  transformation  of  at- 
traction into  repulsion  throughout.  And  this  complica- 
tion must  go  on  increasing  with  the  increased  complexity 
of  grouping  of  particles,  as  the  circular  bands  are  con- 
ceived to  coalesce  into  a  solid  disc,  and  the  disc,  by  revo- 
lution on  its  own  diameter,  to  unfold  into  a  sphere. 

At  the  same  time  there  should  be  borne  in  mind  the 
vastly  complex  network  of  attractions  and  counter-at- 
tractions, involving  the  connection  of  every  particle 
with  every  other  particle  throughout  the  sphere,  and  the 
consequent  tendency,  not,  merely  toward  infinite  concen- 
tration of  the  total  mass  upon  its  own  center,  but  also 
toward  the  obverse  phase  of  its  expansion,  and  even  of 
the  disruption,  not  only  of  the  sphere  itself,  but  also  of 
every  particle  of  matter  in  the  entire  sphere. 


52  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

Lastly,  conceive  the  sphere  to  be  the  total  quantity  of 
matter  in  the  universe,  in  which  case  it  is  evident  that  we 
should  again  have  the  total  of  attractions  so  reacting  upon 
itself  as  to  unfold  into  an  exactly  balancing  total  of 
repulsions.  For  in  the  physical  universe  as  a  whole  (that 
is,  the  only  extended  universe  we  can  ever  know)  the  sum 
of  reactions  in  attraction,  just  as  the  sum  of  reactions  in 
repulsion,  must  be  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  actions. 

And  the  more  fully  to  satisfy  ourselves  that  this  is  the 
case,  we  have  only  to  repeat  that  the  action  of  a  force  in 
any  given  direction  necessarily  implies  that  there  is  resist- 
ance to  overcome.  In  other  words,  there  can  only  be 
action  in  so  far  as  there  is  reaction.  In  the  sum-total  of 
the  physical  world  it  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
be  otherwise  than  that  "  action  and  reaction  are  equal, 
and  in  opposite  directions." 

Thus,  once  more,  attraction  and  repulsion  prove  to  be 
but  the  complementary  modes  of  an  all-pervading  force  or 
energy,  which  constitutes  the  fundamental  characteristic, 
the  inmost  essence,  of  "matter"  —of  whatever  is  real 
and  at  the  same  time  extended.  They  are  thus  the  truly 
essential  "  properties  of  matter." 


CHAPTER  III. 

PHENOMENON   AND   NOUMENON. — THE  ATOM  AS  FIGURED 
IN  IMAGINATION. 

TT  is  now  to  be  further  noted  that,  as  implied  in  our 
-I-  investigation  of  particles  in  their  relation  to  one 
another  in  any  series,  there  are  present  in  inseparable 
union  throughout  the  minutest  possible  portion  of  matter 
both  attraction  and  repulsion,  as  the  necessary  comple- 
mentary phases  of  that  force  which  constitutes  the  sub- 
stance of  matter.  Neither  of  these  phases  can  exist 
anywhere,  in  however  limited  a  sphere,  except  through 
the  co-existence  of  the  other  phase  throughout  the  same 
sphere. 

There  is  latent  here,  indeed,  the  long-vexed  question 
of  the  relation  between  phenomenon  and  noumenon,  be- 
tween appearance  or  manifestation,  and  reality.  Plato 
would  have  it  that  there  is  a  world  of  ideas  or  archetypal 
forms  constituting  the  real,  the  eternal  and  unchanging 
world;  while  the  world  of  man's  experience  is  the  world 
of  appearance,  of  change,  and  hence  a  vanishing  world. 
So,  again  in  modern  times,  Kant  urged  that  we  can  only 
know  phenomena,  while  the  noumenon,  or  thing-in-itself 
(Ding-an-sicJi)  is  forever  beyond  our  ken.  And  again,  in 
quite  recent  times,  it  is  confidently  affirmed  that  while 
appearance  may  be  regarded  as  fairly  within  the  grasp 
of  the  finite  mind,  the  reality  must  forever  remain  to 
such  mind  something  wholly  unapproachable,  absolutely 
unknowable.  53 


54  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

It  would  seem  worth  while  to  note,  however,  that  the 
phenomenon,  otherwise  called  appearance  or  manifesta- 
tion, must  at  least  be  allowed  "  reality "  as  appearance, 
and  that  thus  it  cannot  be  absolutely  separated  from 
reality.  Similarly  also,  the  reality  can  only  be  known  as 
reality  through  its  manifestation.  And,  since  it  is  the 
only  "  reality/'  the  manifestation  so  far  from  being  some- 
thing apart  from  reality,  is  simply  the  reality  manifesting 
itself. 

Indeed,  Mr.  Spencer  himself  declares  that  by  no  mental 
effort  is  it  possible  to  suppress  the  idea  of  absolute  being, 
that  the  unknowable,  as  absolute  being,  manifests  itself, 
and  that  this  self -manifestation  is  in  accordance  with  an 
"  established  order." *  And  from  this  standpoint  it  would 
seem  that  one  ought  to  recognize  the  truth  that  all  reality 
exhibits  or  manifests  just  its  own  essential  being  precisely 
in  unfolding  itself  in  phenomena.  In  other  words,  mani- 
festation is  not  "  something  "  apart  from  reality.  It  is 
nothing  unless  the  manifestation  of  reality.  Whence  it 
would  seem  that  the  ultimate  Reality  or  Absolute  Being 
can  be  rightly  called  the  Unknowable  only  in  a  relative 
sense;  that  is,  in  the  sense  that  we  can  only  progressively 
learn  all  there  is  to  know  about  it,  that  we  can  never 
absolutely  know  it  in  the  sense  of  having  attained  an 
absolutely  complete,  exhaustive  knowledge  of  it  in  all  its 
infinitely  manifold  details. 

The  term  noumenon  has  indeed  already  faded  away  into 
what  might  very  properly  be  styled  a  mere  phenomenon. 
It  simply  marked  a  confused  phase  of  thought,  which  must 
therefore  prove  a  vanishing  phase. 

*"  First  Principles'  (N.  Y.  Ed.),  pp.  117,  122,  and  elsewhere. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  55 

It  is  to  be  further  noted  that  physical  science  has  long 
used  forms  of  expression  clearly  implying  the  insepara- 
bility of  reality  and  manifestation.  Certain  of  the  ' '  prop- 
erties of  matter"  have  been  classed  as  essential — an 
expression  which  can  mean  nothing  else  than  that  these 
properties  are  the  very  essence  of  matter;  that  matter 
exists  in  and  through  these  properties,  and  could  have  no 
existence  without  or  apart  from  them.  This,  indeed,  we 
have  seen  to  be  the  case  in  our  tracing  of  the  simplest 
relations  necessarily  involved  in  the  objects  of  sense-per- 
ception, which  are,  in  general,  the  sum  of  things  extended 
or  characterized  by  externality. 

And  yet  physical  science  has  not  been  able  to  prevent 
the  re-appearance  of  the  shadowy  nqumenon  within  its 
own  domain.  For,  from  the  unquestionably  just  opinion 
that  there  can  be  no  action  save  as  there  is  something 
to  act  upon,  the  conclusion  has  been  leaped  to  that  force 
can  act  only  upon  matter  as  a  something  apart  from 
force. 

Of  course  physicists  have  not  failed  to  note  the  contra- 
diction involved  in  this  conception.  Thus  Thomson  and 
Tait,  in  their  "Elements  of  Natural  Philosophy"  (§  173), 
after  remarking  that  they  "cannot,  of  course,  give  a 
definition  of  matter  which  will  satisfy  the  metaphysician," 
proceed  to  say  that  "  the  naturalist  may  be  content  to  know 
matter  as  that  which  can  be  perceived  by  the  senses,,  or  as 
that  which  can  be  acted  upon  by,  or  can  exert,  force."  To 
which  they  immediately  add  that  "The  latter,  and 
indeed  the  former  also,  of  these  definitions  involves  the 
idea  of  'Force,  which,  in  point  of  fact,  is  a  direct  object  of 
sense;  probably  of  all  our  senses,  and  certainly  of  the  ( mus- 
cular sense.' " 


56  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

This  remarkable  paragraph,  in  which  the  identity 
between  matter  and  force  is  fairly  asserted,  concludes  with 
the  statement  that  "  To  our  chapter  on  the  '  Properties  of 
Matter '  we  must  refer  for  further  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion, What  is  matter  9  " 

The  part  of  the  joint  work  of  these  two  physicists  con- 
taining the  promised  chapter  on  the  properties  of  matter 
does  not  seem  to  have  appeared.  But  a  volume  under 
that  title  has  been  published  by  Professor  Tait,  while  Pro- 
fessor Thomson  has  also  separately  developed  his  own 
theory  upon  the  subject ;  from  which  it  may  be  guessed 
that  the  two  could  not  entirely  agree  as  to  what  should 
be  said  upon  this  particular  theme. 

Indeed,  after  certain  introductory  remarks,  Professor 
Tait  declares  (p.  11)  that  these  "have  been  brought  in 
with  the  view  of  warning  the  reader  that  we  are  dealing 
with  a  subject  so  imperfectly  known,  that  at  almost  any 
part  of  it  one  may  pass  by  a  single  step,  as  it  were,  from 
what  is  acquired  certainty  to  what  is  still  subject  for  mere 
conjecture."  To  which  he  adds  that : 

"An  exact  or  adequate  conception  of  matter  itself, 
could  we  obtain  it,  would  almost  certainly  be  something 
extremely  unlike  any  conception  of  it  which  our  senses 
and  our  reason  will  ever  enable  us  to  form." 

A  little  further  on  (p.  14)  this  declaration  of  nescience 
on  the  part  of  the  scientific  man  concerning  matter  is  even 
more  emphatically  set  forth.  He  has  been  indicating  the 
various  theories  concerning  the  constitution  of  matter,  and, 
referring  especially  to  W.  Thomson's  theory  of  vortex  atoms, 
declares  that  this  "has  the  curious  peculiarity  of  making 
matter,  as  we  can  perceive  it,  depend  upon  the  existence 
of  a  particular  kind  of  motion  of  a  medium  which,  under 


AND   ITS   SELF-COKSERVATION.  57 

many  of  the  definitions  above,  would  be  entitled  to 
claim  the  name  of  matter,  even  when  it  is  not  set  in 
rotation." 

After  thus  indicating  that  the  theory  which  his  former 
associate  had  developed,  with  a  view  to  explaining  the 
constitution  of  matter,  has  the  "  curious  peculiarity  "  of 
assuming  the  thing  it  was  proposed  to  prove,  Professor 
Tait  adds :  "  But  as  we  do  not  know,  and  are  probably 
incapable  of  discovering,  what  matter  is,  what  we  want  at 
present  is  merely  a  definition  which,  while  not  at  least 
obviously  incorrect,  shall  for  the  time  serve  as  a  working 
hypothesis." 

He  therefore  chooses  to  "define,  for  the  moment,  as 
follows : 

''Matter  is  whatever  can  occupy  space;"  and  this  for 
the  following  reason  : 

"Experience  has  proved  that  it  is  from  this  side  that 
the  average  student  can  most  easily  approach  the  sub- 
ject." *  *  * 

The  point  of  view  from  which  we  have  set  out  in  the 
present  essay,  then,  is  not  one  that  the  strictly  scientific 
mind  would  call  an  "  obviously  incorrect "  one.  And  it  is 
reassuring  to  have  such  confirmation  from  one  who  has 
gained  the  right  to  speak  as  one  having  authority,  and  not 
as  the  scribes,  or  "paper  scientists." 

Amid  such  uncertainties,  too,  it  would  seem  to  be 
not  wholly  unwarrantable  for  even  the  "mere  meta- 
physician" to  throw  in  his  conjecture  also,  though, 
from  the  expressions  Professor  Tait  uses,  it  can  hardly 
be  expected  that  such  conjectures  will  be  estimated 
above  the  merest  infinitesimals  by  the — mere  ( ?) — mathe- 
matician. 


58  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

Even  the  infinitesimal  has  its  value,  however,  and  so 
we  proceed  upon  the  line  of  our  argument,  not  without 
some  glimmer  of  hope. 

The  course  of  the  argument  thus  far  has  tended  toward 
the  conclusion  that  the  essence  or  truth  of  matter  is  force 
or  energy.  And  we  have  seen  that  such  eminent  physicists 
as  Thomson  andTait  define  matter  to  be  "that  which  can 
be  acted  upon  by,  or  can  exert,  force/'  We  have  also  seen 
that  Professor  Tait  accepts  as  a  tentative  definition  of 
matter,  "whatever  can  occupy  space." 

In  either  case  matter  cannot  be  a  something  apart  from 
force,  but,  rather,  must  be  identical  with  force,  so  far  as 
we  can  ever  know  anything  about  it.  For,  as  already 
noticed,  it  is  only  through  a  counter  force  opposing  the 
force  we  ourselves  exert  that  we  can  know  anything  about 
"  whatever  occupies  space,"  or  about  space  either,  seeing 
that  we  become  aware  of  extension  only  through  the 
extended. 

But  that  which  is  extended,  or  "can  occupy  space,"  is 
in  that  very  fact  divisible,  at  least  theoretically,  without 
limit ;  and  it  is  divisible,  experimentally,  far  beyond  our 
powers  of  observation.  Whence  all  bodies  within  our  ex- 
perience must  be  aggregations  of  infinitesimal  bodies 
beyond  our  experience  —  at  least  beyond  our  sensuous 
experience.  Nor  is  there  any  necessary  contradiction 
between  the  "  metaphysical "  conception  of  the  infinite 
divisibility  of  matter,  and  its  practically  limited  division, 
as  will  perhaps  become  more  evident  with  the  further 
progress  of  the  argument. 

The  Democritean  conception  of  the  atom,  or  ultimate 
division  of  matter,  has,  of  course,  long  been  given  up. 
Instead  of  the  minute,  absolutely  hard,  and  therefore 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  59 

inelastic  and  eternal,  body  named  "atom"  in  the  ancient 
doctrine,  physical  science  has  first  cautiously  defined  the 
atom  as  the  smallest  division  of  matter  arising  in  chemical 
reactions,  and  has  lately  come  to  look  with  favor  upon  the 
conception  of  the  perfectly  elastic  and  plastic  vortex  atom 
as  somehow  existing  in,  as  parts  of,  a,  perfectly  elastic  fluid 
pervading  all  space. 

That  the  atomic  theory  has  been  an  instrument  of 
wondrous  efficiency  in  the  furtherance  of  physical  science 
there  can  be  no  question.  And  this  can  only  be  because 
there  is  an  essential  truth  involved  in  that  theory.  At  the 
same  time,  as  leading  scientists  themselves  clearly  recog- 
nize and  explicitly  affirm,  this  does  not  necessitate  the 
conclusion  that  the  atom,  as  a  necessarily  permanent, 
unalterable  unit,  is  anything  more  than  a  mere  product  of 
the  "scientific  imagination" — something,  indeed,  not  so 
very  far  removed  from  things  "  metaphysical." 

So  long  as  modern  science  held  fast  to  the  conception 
of  rigid  atoms,  it  was  under  the  necessity  of  also  assuming 
the  "void,"  in  so  far  as  " pores"  were  indispensable  to 
the  elasticity  of  a  body.  But  this  again  led  to  another 
assumption.  As  "action  at  a  distance"  is  unthinkable, 
according  to  Newton,  and  also  according  to  anyone  else 
who  has  done  any  genuine  thinking,  and  as  atoms,  never- 
theless, act  upon  one  another,  though  separated  from 
each  other  by  the  void  "pores,"  it  was  assumed  by 
Clausius  and  others  that  each  atom  was  surrounded  by  a 
sphere  of  force  which  was  elastic,  but  which  also  prevented 
the  enclosed  atom  from  ever  coming  into  contact  with  any 
other  atom. 

With  the  impact  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  the  force- 
sphere  seemed  no  longer  indispensable.  Each  atom,  having 


60  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

an  irrepressible  and  more  or  less  irresistible  way  of  beat- 
ing about  among  its  neighbors  as  if  it  were  a  "little 
demon/'  preserves  its  own  eminent  domain  inviolable. 
The  impetus  given  in  such  impacts  would  produce  the 
phenomena  of  repulsion,  while  the  rebound',  allowing  the 
atoms  to  be  elastic,  would  give  rise  to  like  phenomena 
in  opposite  directions,  and  the  approach  of  atom  to 
atom  in  either  way  would  likewise  give  rise  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  attraction.  At  the  same  time,  the  tf^void" 
appears  here  in  its  primitive  simplicity. 

Indeed,  this  theory  approaches  nearest  to  that  of 
Democritus,  the  difference,  in  one  respect  at  least,  being 
that  the  cause  of  motion  in  the  atoms  is  left  as  something 
unknown,  if  not  inexplicable,  while,  in  the  other,  the 
atom  is  assumed  to  have  an  inherent  eternal  motion — 
a  kind  of  self-activity.  From  such  crude  "science"  as 
that  of  Democritus,  indeed,  one  could  hardly  expect  the 
mythical  element  to  be  wholly  excluded.  Accordingly, 
with  him  the  atom  seems  to  have  been  a  sort  of  uncon- 
scious symbolical  eternizing  of  the  beautiful,  self-complete 
divinities  of  the  Greek  popular  faith.  Thus,  with  the 
father  of  the  atomic  theory,  matter,  or  substance,  was 
absolutely  discrete,  and  "bodies"  such  as  those  appealing 
to  our  senses  could  only  result  from  the  accidental  and 
temporary  aggregation  of  the  ever-self-sufficient  and,  in 
some  sense,  divine,  atoms. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that,  however  superior  the  modern 
methods  of  science,  the  impact  theory  still  leaves  us  no 
alternative.  From  this  theory  we  must  also  accept  the 
absolute  discreteness  of  matter,  and  thus  find  ourselves 
forced  into  irreconcilable  contradiction  with  the  conception 
of  the  continuity  of  matter.  And  this  is  as  much  as  to 


AND   ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION.  61 

say  -that  it  is  irreconcilable  with  the  theory  of  the  all- 
pervading,,  perfectly  elastic  fluid,  which  fluid  would  seem 
to  be  in  its  very  nature  perfectly  continuous  in  spite  of 
its  seeming  discreteness  as  developed  in  the  vortex  atom. 

To  this  it  may  be  added  that,,  on  the  supposition  that 
matter  consists  solely  of  atoms,  and  that  it  is  therefore 
absolutely  discrete,  then  the  essential  properties  of  matter 
must  really  be  the  essential  properties  of  the  atom.  Thus, 
in  the  first  place,  the  atom  must  be  pervaded  throughout 
by  attraction  at  least,  since,  being  of  a  definite  volume,  it 
must  be  drawn  together  by  an  infinite  force  in  order  that 
it  may  be  able  to  maintain  its  integrity  as  against  all 
forces  tending  toward  its  disintegration.  And  yet,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  the  attraction  thus  demanded  for  the 
assured  existence  of  the  atom  must  appear,  in  however 
limited  a  compass,  as  the  complement  of  repulsion.  Nay, 
the  incompressibility  of  the  atom  is  itself  once  more  a 
manifestation  of  repulsion,  which  is  at  the  same  time 
equally  the  infinitely  vigorous  truth  of  its  attraction. 
In  other  words,  here,  as  everywhere,  the  existence  of 
attraction  at  any  point  necessarily  implies  repulsion  at  the 
same  point,  and  equally  the  contrary. 

It  may  be  added,  too,  that,  on  the  supposition  of  rigid 
atoms,  in  order  that  the  atom  may  retain  its  rigidity  in 
form  and  volume,  it  would  be  necessary  that  the  relations 
between  the  attractions  and  repulsions  within  it  should 
never  be  disturbed.  And  this  again  would  require  that 
the .  external  relations  of  the  atom  should  forever  remain 
unchanged.  In  other  words,  the  atom  could  only  be  and 
remain  absolutely  rigid  upon  condition  that  the  whole 
universe  should  likewise  remain  absolutely  rigid,  and 
hence  wholly  destitute  of  motion  in  any  and  every  sense. 


62  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

On  the  other  hand,  should  the  external  conditions 
change,  then  the  relations  between  the  attractions  and 
repulsions  within  the  atom  must  change,  following  upon 
which — or,  rather,  necessarily  accompanying  which — the 
volume  and  the  form  would  undergo  change.  That  is,  the 
"atom"  must  then  prove  to  be  itself  an  aggregate  of  an 
indefinite  number  of  parts,  each  of  which  must  in  the 
same  way  prove  to  be  changeable  in  volume,  and  hence 
also  to  be  made  up  of  parts,  and  so  on  until  the  atom  slips 
completely  from  our  grasp,  and  the  irritating,  if  not  terri- 
fying, "metaphysical"  conception  of  the  infinite  divisi- 
bility of  matter  once  more  stares  us  in  the  face. 

In  fact,  there  is  here  presented  to  us  an  intimation  that 
there  is  some  other  relation  between  the  discreteness  and 
the  continuity  of  matter  than  that  of  their  mutual  exclu- 
sion. And,  it  may  as  well  be  added,  this  is  the  one  valid 
excuse  for  introducing  the  foregoing  discussion  of  the 
rigid  atom. 

What  that  other  and  truer  relation  really  is  will,  it  is 
hoped,  appear  in  the  further  course  of  the  argument. 

In  resuming,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  tendency  of 
the  argument  thus  far  is  to  show  that  while,  of  course, 
force  cannot  act  save  as  there  is  something  for  it  to  act 
upon,  the  "  something"  required  is  not  a  "matter"  as 
apart  from  force,  but  rather  it  is  force  itself.  Force  can 
in  truth  act  upon  nothing  else  than  force.  It  can,  let 
us  repeat,  prove  itself  to  be  force  no  otherwise  than  in  the 
opposition  of  contrasted  phases.  Force  is  exerted  only  in 
opposing  force,  and  force  not  exerted  is  no  force  at  all. 

In  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  "matter," 
there  is  implied  just  the  passive  phase  of  the  physical 
world,  while  " force"  is  the  active  phase.  Or,  to  use 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  63 

G.  H.  Lewes's  form  of  expression,  te  Matter  is  the  passive 
aspect  of  existence/'*  But  we  have  already  seen  that  force 
is,,  in  its  very  nature,  at  once  active  and  passive.  So  that 
the  conception  of  a  matter  apart  from  force  only  darkens 
the  stream  of  thought  with  a  sediment  having  no  corre- 
sponding reality  in  nature. 

The  theory  of  Clausius,  already  referred  to,  has  a  germ 
of  suggestiveness  which  may  be  put  to  use  along  with  the 
theory  of  Boscovich.  In  the  theory  of  the  former,  the 
material  atom  is  surrounded  by  a  sphere  of  force.  In  the 
theory  of  the  latter,  the  atom  or  ultimate  element  of  mat- 
ter is  a  mathematical  point,  from  which  radiate  out  to  a 
greater  or  less  distance,  both  attraction  and  repulsion. 

In  either  case  the  force-sphere,  as  limited,  must  still 
present  the  difficulty  of  "action  at  a  distance. "  It  is 
also  evident  that  in  the  theory  of  Clausius  the  atom  itself 
plays  absolutely  no  part  whatever.  All  that  is  done  is 
done  by  the  force-sphere  surrounding  the  atoms.  What- 
ever action  is  directed  toward  an  atom  is  already  received 
and  reacted  upon  by  the  sphere  of  force  in  which  the 
neither  active  nor  passive  atom  is  imprisoned — in  blissful 
unconsciousness,  it  may  be  presumed — to  all  eternity. 

It  seems  evident,  then,  that  any  supposed  matter  as 
apart  from  force,  is  the  veriest  fiction;  that,  in  short,  the 
"  atom,"  as  generally  figured,  is  simply  an  unscientific 
creation  of  the  insufficiently  restrained  phantasy;  that  is, 
of  the  -wwscientific  imagination.  In  other  words,  it  is 
simply  the  re-appearance,  under  a  changed  and  scarcely 
improved  form,  of  the  mysterious,  unapproachable,  met- 
aphysical noumenon  of  the  Middle  Age  modes  of  thought, 
from  which  it  might  reasonably  be  supposed  that  the 

*  "  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind"  (Boston  Ed.),  II.,  302. 


64  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

progressive  science  of  the  nineteenth  century  should  long 
ago  have  freed  itself. 

And  mainly,  indeed,  this  has  actually  been  accom- 
plished. The  word  " atom"  is  used  more  and  more  in  a 
symbolic  sense,  and  now  really  involves  no  contradiction 
with  the  conception  that  matter,  as  that  which  is  ex- 
tended, or  which  can  occupy  space,  simply  consist  of  its 
properties  manifested  in  various  degrees,  under  various 
conditions.  And  let  us  recall  that,  thus  far  in  the  present 
essay,  two  opposite  and  complementary  forces,  or  modes 
of  force,  have  appeared  as  constituting  the  very  basis  or 
essence  of  matter  as  that  which  is  extended. 

From  whatever  side  we  view  the  subject,  then,  force 
appears  to  be  the  sole  reality  of  matter;  while  the  "  atom," 
as  a  something  existing  apart  from  force,  proves  to  be 
nothing  else  than  a  phantasmal  product  of  that  "bad 
metaphysics,"  which  is,  perhaps,  indulged  in  most  of  all 
by  those  who  know  least  of,  and  therefore  Have  least 
patience  with,  metaphysics,  properly  speaking. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

TRUTH   OF  THE   ATOM. — PENETRABILITY   OF  MATTER. 

•^TEVEKTHELESS,  as  already  stated,  the  conception 
-*--^  of  the  atom  has  served  an  excellent  purpose  in  the 
progress  of  physical  science.  And  we  have  next  to  in- 
quire what  the  truth  of  this  conception  is. 

We  have  seen  that  the  really  essential  elements  of  mat- 
ter in  its  most  rudimentary  state  must  be  the  two  comple- 
mentary modes  of  force,  attraction  and  repulsion,  and 
thus  have  grounds  for  the  assurance  that  matter  consists 
of,  and  is  nothing  apart  from,  force.  It  has  also  become 
evident  that  neither  of  these  modes  of  force  can  exist  in 
reality,  save  as  in  completely  blended  unity  with  the 
other.  Indeed,  when  either  is  assumed  as  real,  the 
other  necessarily  proves  to  be  already  contained  in  it. 
Or,  more  strictly  speaking,  each  is  not  itself  merely,  but 
is  itself  and  the  other. 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized,  then,  that  in 
every  minutest  possible  portion  of  whatever  is  real,  and  at 
the  same  time  characterized  by  externality,  attraction  and 
repulsion  must  be  present  in  completely  blended  unity. 
Or,  it  may  just  as  well  be  said,  each  must  be  present,  both 
as  itself,  and  the  other.  And  this  is  but  to  say  that 
everywhere  where  "  matter"  exists  there  must  be  at  every 
point  a  center  whence  force  radiates  in  every  direction, 
and  with  an  intensity  diminishing  uniformly  with  in- 
crease of  distance  from  that  center. 

65 


66  THE   WOKLD-ENEKGY 

Thus  far,  indeed,  it  would  seem  that  matter  would 
necessarily  be  distributed  uniformly  through  space,  and 
that  therefore  " body"  would  have  no  meaning.  To  this 
objection  an  answer  will  develop  in  the  further  course  of 
the  argument. 

What  we  have  now  to  note  is  that  the  force  radiating 
from  the  centers  everywhere  appearing  in  whatever 
occupies  space,  would  not,  according  to  the  conception  of 
the  constitution  of  matter  thus  far  developed,  ever  reach 
any  absolute  limit.  And  this  would  seem  to  be  the  same 
conception  as  that  which  would  result  from  the  fusion  of 
the  two  theories  before  mentioned.  The  "  atom "  of 
Clausius  vanishes  into  the  non-extended  point  of  Bosco- 
vich,  and  from  such  focus  a  sphere  of  force  extends  indef- 
initely, though  with  gradually  diminishing  intensity. 
That  is,  the  points  of  force  in  the  one  case  and  the  atoms 
in  the  other  are  seen  to  be  each  in  reality  just  a  focus  of 
force.  That,  it  would  seem,  is  the  truth  of  the  "atom." 

But,  this  once  recognized,  a  number  of  important  in- 
ferences are  seen  to  logically  follow.  In  the  first  place, 
if  the  atom  is  in  truth  nothing  else  or  less  than  a  focus  of 
force,  it  is  evident  that  it  has  no  absolutely  fixed  boundary. 
Its  nucleus  must  indeed  possess  a  maximum  of  tension, 
but  as  it  radiates  outward  in  all  directions,  its  extent  or 
volume  must  be  indefinitely  great. 

Hence,  secondly,  we  would  express  the  truth  more 
precisely  if,  instead  of  using  the  formula,  "  every  par- 
ticle of  matter  attracts  every  other  particle  of  matter," 
we  were  to  say:  Every  focus  of  force,  through  its  unlim- 
ited expansion,  takes  hold  upon  every  other  focus  of 
force.  And  thus,  thirdly,  instead  of  the  atoms,  or  foci 
of  force,  being  merely  side  by  side  in  space,  and 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  67 

therefore  characterized  in  their  absolute  isolation  by  exter- 
nality solely,  it  is  evident  that  each  in  its  unlimited 
expansion  includes  all  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  included 
in  all.  In  other  words,  each  "atom,"  in  its  relation  to 
every  other  "  atom/'  includes  the  whole  physical  universe. 
It  therefore  has  in  some  sense  internality  as  well  as  exter- 
nality ;  that  is,  the  greater  its  extent,  the  greater  also 
would  seem  to  be  its  intent  or  content. 

NorJn  saying  this  is  there  any  latent  purpose  to  trifle 
with  the  reader's  time.  We  are  attempting  to  examine 
the  "atom"  in  its  nature  and  essence.  That  is,  we  are 
endeavoring  to  trace  out  its  fundamental  characteristics 
and  relations.  And  in  so  far  as  this  is  really  accom- 
plished, there  lies  open  before  us  the  fact  that  this 
so-called  ultimate,  simple  division  of  matter  is  in  truth 
a  highly  complex  phase  of  the  physical  universe.  It  exists 
not  merely  by  itself,  or  in  isolation — that  is,  within  abso- 
lutely fixed  boundaries — but  rather  it  exists  for  all  else- 
that  is  extended — just  as  all  else  that  is  extended  exists 
reciprocally  for  it. 

That  is,  the  total  sum  of  the  extended  can  only  be  con- 
ceived as  an  indivisible  unit,  which  is  at  the  same  time  an 
immeasurably  complex  manifold ;  though  in  our  present 
investigation  only  the  relatively  simplest  phases  of  this 
manifoldness  have  as  yet  received  explicit  statement. 

The  next  thing,  indeed,  that  lies  on  the  surface  after 
what  has  already  been  developed  is  the  solution  of  the  con- 
tradiction between  impenetrability  and  compressibility  as 
properties  of  the  extended.  Even  in  the  diffusion  of 
gases  "matter"  shows  itself  to  be  practically  in  greater  or 
less  degree  penetrable.  And  while  this  is  usually  explained 
on  the  theory  of  the  <( porosity"  of  matter,  yet  in  every 


68  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

chemical  combination  there  is  evidently  a  genuine  inter- 
penetration  on  the  part  of  the  elements,  so  that  at  no 
minutest  point  is  there  to  be  found  any  particle  of  either 
element  untransformed.  "Atoms  "  combine,  become  inter- 
fused, mutually  penetrate,  whenever  a  chemical  reaction 
takes  place. 

Thus,  even  empirically,  the  porosity  theory,  in  expla- 
nation of  so-called  impenetrability,  is  found  to  be  unneces- 
sary, at  least  in  such  cases,  seeing  that  in  such  cases 
"  matter  "  is  really  penetrable.  And  on  the  theory  which 
we  have  seen  reasons  to  adopt — namely,  that  the  atom 
is  just  the  nucleus  of  an  indefinitely  extended  force- 
sphere — porosity  appears  to  be  in  its  ultimate  character 
simply  a  fiction,  having  its  only  claim  to  reality  in  the 
complementary  fiction  of  the  absolutely  rigid  "atom." 

Nor  can  we  too  strongly  emphasize  the  proposition  that 
this  force-sphere  constituting  the  truth  of  the  "atom" 
(and,  hence,  constituting  the  truth  of  " matter")  is  a 
reality.  And  because  every  "atom"  is  indefinitely — or, 
rather,  infinitely — extended,  then  there  can  be  no  part  of 
space  where  there  is  no  force,  no  physical  reality.  Doubt- 
less this  plenum  presents  various  and  varying  degrees  of 
tension,  but  everywhere  it  would  appear  that  there  must 
be  some  degree  of  tension,  some  degree  of  reality. 

Thus,  what  are  called  "pores,"  or  inter-atomic  spaces, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  relative  degrees  of  density  in  the 
matter  that  fills  all  space.  So  that  when  the  atoms  or 
molecules  of  two  gases  mutually  occupy  the  "pores"  of  one 
another,  it  would  seem  that  the  gases  really  penetrate  one 
another,  according  to  the  law  that  motion  takes  place  in 
the  direction  of  greatest  traction  or  of  least  resistance. 
Least  resistance,  not  no  resistance. 


ITS   SELF-CONSERVATIOK.  69 

But,  still  further,  and  leaving  aside  such  concrete 
example,  which  at  the  present  stage  of  our  argument  must 
be  considered  an  anticipation,  it  is  evident  that  the  rela- 
tions of  force  running  out  from  every  minutest  center, 
and  connecting  it  essentially,  really,  with  every  other 
center,  must  penetrate  each  other  to  an  unlimited  extent. 
It  is,  once  more,  the  mutual  inclusion  of  each  in  all  and 
all  in  each. 

It  appears,  then,  that  impenetrability,  as  already  hinted, 
is  but  the  negative  aspect  of  resistance  or  repulsion,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  also  necessarily  involves  attraction — the 
opposite  but  also  the  necessary  complement  of  repulsion. 
Whence  we  may  conclude  that  a  body  is  "  impenetrable  " 
in  this  sense,  and  this  sense  only:  That  in  so  far  as  it  is 
real  it  is  simply  a  nucleus  of  force;  or,  if  one  prefers,  it 
is  a  compacted  cluster  of  such  nuclei.  It  cannot,  there- 
fore, be  infinitely  compressed — that  is,  reduced  in  volume 
to  a  point,  or  to  no-volume — because,  if  that  is  to  be 
accomplished,  whatever  force  is  brought  to  bear  upon  it 
must  be  applied  on  all  sides.  That  is,  the  applied  force 
simply  unites  its  own  volume  with,  by  completely  sur- 
rounding, the  body  to  be  compressed,  and  then  presses  in 
upon  that  body  on  all  sides.  In  other  words,  since  what  is 
to  be  compressed  is  enfolded  in  and  now  constitutes  the 
central  portion  of  that  by  which  it  is  to  be  compressed, 
the  whole  now  constitutes  in  reality  one  continuous 
system,  which  to  all  intents  and  purposes  can  compress 
nothing  but  itself.  It  is  a  proposed  self-crusher. 

But  the  greater  the  strain  applied  toward  the  center 
the  greater  the  strain  developed  from  the  center.  As  the 
hollow  golden  sphere  forces  its  way  into  the  enclosed 
water,  the  water  at  the  same  time  forces  its  way  out 


70  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

through  the  enclosing  sphere.  It  is  an  initial  metamor- 
phosis, in  which  the  outer  shows  its  readiness  to  become 
inner,  and  the  inner  an  equal  readiness  to  become  outer. 
But  as  to  crushing  anything  out  of  existence — that  can 
never  be  done;  not  even  were  the  whole  universe  to  join 
in  the  attempt.  For  it  would  still  be  the  universe  strain- 
ing at  self-annihilation,  and  all  the  while  in  such  effort, 
nay,  as  the  very  consequence  of  such  effort,  only  suc- 
ceeding in  bringing  into  fullest  manifestation  or  realiza- 
tion whatever  could  possibly  lie  within  it  as  hidden  or 
potential. 

"  Matter  "  is  impenetrable,  then,  in  this  sense,  and  in 
this  sense  only:  That  action  and  reaction  are,  in  the  long 
run,  absolutely  equal  and  in  opposite  directions,  and  that 
therefore  force  or  energy  is  forever  indestructible. 

At  the  same  time,  as  previously  noticed,  so  far  as  there 
may  be  local  changes  of  relation  between  attraction  and 
repulsion,  bodies  will  inevitably  alter  in  volume.  The 
bringing  external  pressure  to  bear  is  itself  a  change  of 
conditions;  and  a  change  of  such  character  as,  within 
certain  limits,  to  diminish  the  volume  of — that  is,  to 
compress — the  given  body.  Limited  portions  of  matter 
(bodies)  are  measurably  compressible,  but  not  indefinitely 
so.  Compressibility  is,  in  fact,  just  a  relation  between 
attraction  and  repulsion,  the  two  elementary  factors  of 
matter. 


CHAPTER  V. 

TRANSITION  TO  THE  QUANTITATIVE  ASPECTS  OF  MATTER 
THROUGH  INCREASE  IN  QUALITATIVE  CHARACTERIS- 
TICS. 

~|  FERE,  we  may  now  observe,  there  is  already  presented 
-* — *-  to  us  the  ground  of  the  varying  states  of  "matter," 
or  the  extended.  Attraction  tends  toward  concentration, 
repulsion  toward  diffusion,  of  matter.  According,  then, 
as  the  former  or  the  latter  predominates  at  any  given 
moment  in  any  given  portion  of  matter,  the  tension  will 
be  increased  and  the  volume  diminished,  or  the  contrary. 
With  the  predominance  of  attraction,  the  given  portion 
of  matter  will  be  in  the  solid  state.  With  the  approach 
toward  a  balance  of  the  two  complementary  modes  of 
force,  the  solid  will  become  viscid.  With  further  increase 
of  the  relative  degree  of  repulsion,  the  liquid  state  will  be 
reached  ;  and  the  continuance  of  increase  in  this  tendency 
must  result  at  length  in  the  matter  assuming  the  gaseous 
state. 

Similarly,  on  the  contrary,  relative  increase  of  attrac- 
tion over  repulsion  must  result  in  a  given  gaseous  mass 
becoming  condensed  into  a  liquid,  and  again  in  the  liquid 
passing  into  the  solid  state.  Of  this,  indeed,  something 
more  remains  to  be  said  at  a  later  stage  of  our  inquiry. 

What  has  just  been  said  concerning  the  relation  between 
attraction  and  repulsion  brings  us  to  note  this  further 
point:  That  there  is  doubtless  more  in  the  distinction 

71 


72  THE   WORLD-EKERGY 

between  ponderable  and  imponderable  matter  than  modern 
scientists  are  for  the  most  part  disposed  to  admit.  "  Pon- 
derable "  matter  is  matter  that  has  weight.  But  weight  is, 
properly  speaking,  an  accident  of  matter,  not  a  necessary 
property.  It  is  wholly  erroneous  to  regard  it  as  identical 
with  attraction.  It  is,  as  Professor  Tait  points  out,  a  rela- 
tion between  bodies  ;  or,  as  we  should  here  prefer  to  say, 
weight  is  simply  the  excess  of  attraction  or  centripetal 
force  over  repulsion  or  centrifugal  force.  Even  in  the 
ordinary  text-books  on  physics,  indeed,  it  is  pointed  out 
that  the  "  weight "  of  a  given  body  is  less  at  the  equator 
than  at  any  point  distant  from  the  equator,  and  that  the 
greater  "  weight "  always  corresponds  with  greater  distance 
from  the  equator.  Of  course  this  difference  in  the  weight 
of  a  body,  corresponding  with  difference  in  latitude,  is  due 
chiefly  to  centrifugal  force — that  is,  to  the  mass  of  the 
body  itself  combined  with,  or  "multiplied  into,"  the 
"tangential  velocity."  And  one  need  only  recall  the 
frequently  repeated  calculation  that,  were  the  equatorial 
velocity  increased  to  seventeen  times  its  present  rate, 
the  weight  of  bodies  at  the  equator  would  be  just  nil. 
That  is,  even  solid  bodies  would  become  thus  far 
"imponderable." 

But  in  another  way  matter  may  become  imponderable. 
Weight,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  measure  of  the  excess  of 
attraction  over  repulsion,  or  centrifugal  force.  We  have 
also  seen  that  in  respect  of  the  states  of  matter,  the  excess 
of  attraction  over  repulsion  is  the  condition  essential  to 
the  solid  state  (the  production  or  retention  of  matter  in 
the  solid  state  through  pressure,  being  but  a  special  phase 
of  attraction).  Thus  what  we  know  as  "ponderable 
matter  "  is  directly  associated  with  a  large  mass  of  solid 


AND   ITS  SELF-COtfSERVATIOH.  73 

matter — the  earth.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  seem 
that  imponderable  matter  is  in  this  sense  just  that  phase 
of  matter  in  which  repulsion  is  so  highly  developed  that 
within  a  given  volume  (of  any  finite  extent),  the  tendency 
toward  separation  is  vastly  greater  than  the  tendency 
toward  concentration,  and  that  therefore  in  such  volume 
even  gravity  is  masked,  while  weight  would  have  no 
existence  at  all. 

Thus,  as  all  matter  consists  primarily  of  the  interaction 
of  attraction  and  repulsion,  and  as  there  is  no  absolute 
limit  to  the  degree  in  which  this  interaction  may  vary 
locally,  so  there  is  no  absolute  limit  to  the  possible  diffuse- 
ness  of  matter  in  any  given  portion  of  space. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  throughout  the  spaces  far 
removed  from  large,  dense  masses  of  matter,  there  is  dif- 
fused what  may  properly  be  called  imponderable  matter. 
And  there  seems  no  good  reason  why  we  should  not  adopt 
for  this  imponderable  matter  the  name,  ether.  It  is  the 
"  unseen  universe  ";  nay,  in  some  sense  the  unseeable  uni- 
verse, since  it  is  that  part  of  physical  reality  which,  as 
such,  must  forever  elude  all  efforts  to  bring  it  to  the  test 
of  the  chemist's  balance.  It  seems  in  some  sense  to 
especially  court  inquiries  of  the  metaphysical  kind,  and 
more  or  less  to  refuse  answer  to  questions  put  in  any 
other  form. 

Doubtless  the  reader  has  already  observed  that  the 
proof  of  the  possibility  of  any  change  whatever  in  matter, 
considered  as  constituted  of  absolutely  balanced  modes  of 
force,  is  not  as  yet  by  any  means  forthcoming  in  the 
present  essay.  It  is  well,  at  least,  to  have  this  explicitly 
called  to  mind,  in  order  that  the  demand  for  such  proof 
may  not  be  forgotten  or  in  any  degree  slurred  over.  Nor 


74  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

shall  we  omit  to  look  carefully  for  such  proof  as  we 
proceed. 

For  the  present,  however,  we  must  leave  the  question 
in  abeyance.  Change  unquestionably  does  take  place  in 
the  extended  world  which  constitutes  the  object  or  sum  of 
objects  of  our  perceptions,  however  these  changes  may  be 
ultimately  accounted  for.  What  has  thus  far  been  proven 
is  that  the  truth  of  the  extended  world  is  force,  which  in 
turn  is  a  complex  of  mutually  inclusive,  everywhere  inter- 
penetrating, attractions  and  repulsions.  What  is  proven 
is,  that  the  world  is  so  constituted.  What  remains  to  be 
shown  in  this  connection  is,  how  such  balance  of  forces 
can  result  in  an  active  universe. 

•What  follows  will,  it  is  believed,  be  seen  to  join  on 
naturally  to  the  already  completed  portion  of  proof,  and 
furnish  an  important  stage  in  the  movement  leading  up 
to  the  more  adequate  developments  of  the  argument. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  increase  in  the  number 
of  atoms  or  radiant  centers,  within  a  given  compass,  must 
increase  the  complexity  of  lines  of  relation  between  those 
centers.  From  this  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  with  the 
advancing  concentration  of  matter  in  any  given  locality 
from  any  cause,  there  could  not  fail  to  be  increased 
intricacy  of  interpenetration  of  the  indefinitely  extended 
dynamical  spheres. 

But  increased  complexity  of  dynamical  relations  can 
only  be  manifested  as  increased  complexity  of  material 
characteristics.  On  the  contrary,  the  more  widely  sep- 
arated the  radiant  centers  are,  the  less  intricate  and 
less  tense  must  be  the  dynamical  relations,  and  hence 
also  the  less  must  be  the  complexity  of  material  char- 
acteristics. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  75 

While,  then,  attraction  is  a  strain  toward  simple  unity, 
in  that  it  tends  to  concentrate  all  into  a  single  totality,  it 
proves  also  to  be  a  strain  toward  the  heterogeneous,  in  that 
it  tends  to  develop  a  multiplicity  of  qualitative  differences 
within  that  total.  And  so,  also,  on  the  other  hand,  while 
repulsion  is  a  strain  toward  infinite  multiplicity,  in  that  it 
is  a  continuous  outputting  or  development  of  yet  other 
ones  from  the  total  one,  it  proves  also  to  be  none  the  less 
a  strain  toward  the  homogeneous,  since  it  is,  after  all,  a 
development  of  "  ones,"  each  qualitatively  indistinguish- 
able from  the  others;  the  result  being  a  cancellation  or 
annulment  of  qualitative  differences.  Condensation 
means  increased  tension,  and  increased  tension  means 
increased  complexity  of  matter;  just  as,  on  the  con- 
trary, rarefaction  means  decreased  tension,  and  de- 
creased tension  means  decreased  complexity  of  matter. 

Such  is  the  logical  conclusion  to  which  the  argument 
thus  far  leads.  And  this  conclusion  is  distinctly  in  agree- 
ment with  the  results  of  the  most  searching  investigations 
in  physical  science,  and  especially  with  the  brilliant  results 
achieved  by  means  of  the  spectroscope,  in  connection  with 
the  nebular  hypothesis.  * 

It  is  well  known  that,  previous  to  the  invention  of  this 
remarkable  instrument,  there  was  no  means  of  answering 
the  question  whether  certain  cloud-like  patches  in  the 
heavens  consisted  of  diffuse  incandescent  matter,  or  of 
star-clusters  so  distant  that,  to  the  eye  of  an  observer 
from  the  earth,  their  light  blended  together.  With  the 
invention  of  the  spectroscope,  however,  scientists  found 
themselves  in  possession  of  an  instrument  that  revealed 

*  See  the  special  works  on  "Spectrum  Analysis,'1''  by  Schellen  and  by 
Lockyer,  the  latter  in  the  "International  Science  Series." 


76  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

instantly  whether  or  not  the  light  received  into  it  was 
from  a  body  in  the  gaseous  state.  Not  only  so,  but  in 
addition  to  this  it  also  revealed  the  remarkable  fact  that 
each  of  the  so-called  elements  has  its  own  peculiar  and 
exclusive  spectrum. 

With  this  instrument  the  vexed  question  as  to  the 
reality  of  true  nebulae  was  at  once  set  at  rest.  The 
spectrum  of  nebula  after  nebula  was  found  to  present 
unmistakable  characteristics-,  showing  that  these  were 
actual  masses  of  matter  in  extremely  attenuated  gaseous 
form. 

But  what  is  especially  to  our  present  purpose  is  the 
fact  that  of  these  nebulae  some  were  found  to  consist  of 
but  few  elements,  mainly  hydrogen  and  nitrogen;  while 
in  the  spectra  of  others  there  are  lines  indicating  a  greater 
number  of  elements,  and  so  on,  until  the  continuous 
spectrum  indicating  the  presence  of  all  the  known  elements 
is  developed  from  the  sun  and  other  incandescent  bodies 
in  the  solid  or  in  the  liquid  state. 

From  these  grounds  alone,  the  logical  or  natural — that 
is,  rational — inference  is  that  increase  in  multiplicity  of 
elements,  which  is  the  same  as  increase  in  complexity  of 
matter,  goes  hand  in  hand  with,  and  is  a  consequence  of, 
the  increased  complexity  of  those  force-relations  consti- 
tuting matter  which  must  inevitably  result  from  the  con- 
densation of  nebulous  masses  in  space.  Thus  it  seems 
that  the  more  diffuse  the  nebula,  the  more  simple  the 
spectrum;  that  is,  the  more  simple  the  constitution  of 
the  "matter"  composing  the  nebula;  while  the  more 
advanced  toward  solidification,  the  more  complex  must  be 
the  spectrum;  in  other  words,  the  more  complex  the  con- 
stitution of  the  "  matter'"  composing  the  nebula. 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  77 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  of  the  claim  that  all  matter 
is  permanently  divided  into  seventy  or  more  elements,  all 
differing  essentially  from  one  another  ?  It  is  true  that 
chemists  themselves  are  beginning  to  doubt  the  finality  of 
their  analyses ;  and  while  the  tendency  still  is  in  the  main 
to  look  to  a  further  increase  in  the  number  of  elements, 
there  is  already  arising  here  and  there  a  guarded  query  as 
to  whether,  after  all,  the  elements  may  not  prove  to  be  only 
specialized  conditions  of  a  <( matter"  that,  theoretically 
at  least,  is  primarily  homogeneous.* 

I  say  "theoretically,"  because  it  is  evident  that  there 
can  be  no  actual  case  of  concrete  matter  which  can  be 
strictly  homogeneous.  This  we  have  already  seen  in  the 
attempt  to  form  a  conception  of  matter  as  consisting 
solely  of  repulsion.  It  was  found  that  such  conception 
cannot  be  formed,  because  no  sooner  has  the  representa- 
tion of  such  assumption  been  made  than  it  becomes  evi- 
dent that  any  real  repulsion  must  develop  attraction  as  a 
necessary  aspect  of  such  real  repulsion;  just  as  any  real 
attraction  must  include,  as  a  necessary  phase  of  itself, 
repulsion  also. 

In  this  connection  the  following  significant  paragraph 
from  Lockyer  ("  Spectrum  Analysis,"  N.  Y.  Ed.,  p.  190) 
may  be  cited.  "It  is,"  he  says,  "abundantly  clear  that 
if  the  so-called  elements,  or,  more  properly  speaking, 
their  finest  atoms — those  that  give  us  line  spectra — are 

*  It  was  not  until  after  the  foregoing  was  written  that  I  read  Mr.  Spen 
cer's  "  Principles  of  Psychology"  and  found  therein  (N.  Y.  Ed.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  155) 
the  following  statement:  "Moreover,  there-  is  reason  to  suspect  that  the 
so-called  simple  substances  are  themselves  compound,  and  that  there  is  but 
one  ultimate  form  of  matter,  out  of  which  the  successively  more  complex 
forms  of  matter  are  built  up."  Other  suggestions  of  a  similar  nature  had 
been  previously  made— as  that  hydrogen  is  the  ultimate  form  of  matter; 
though  this  has  the  obvious  fault  of  regarding  one  of  the  various  differen- 
tiated phases  of  matter  as  itself  the  primal  undifferentiated  aspect  of  matter. 


78  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

really  compounds,  the  compounds  must  have  been  formed 
at  a  very  high  temperature.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  that 
there  may  be  no  superior  limit  to  temperature,  and  there- 
fore no  superior  limit  beyond  which  such  combinations 
are  impossible.  Because  the  atoms  which  have  the  power 
of  combining  together  at  these  transcendental  stages  of 
heat  do  not  exist  as  such,  or  rather,  they  exist  combined 
with  other  similar  atoms,  at  lower  temperatures.  Hence 
association  will  be  a  combination  of  more  complex 
molecules  as  temperature  is  reduced,  and  of  dissociation, 
therefore,  with  increased  temperature  there  may  be  no 
end." 

To  this  conclusion,  indeed,  the  facts  brought  to  light 
by  means  of  the  spectroscope  clearly  point,  and  thus,  as 
already  remarked,  offer  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  argu- 
ment we  have  presented  above  in  abstract  form,  showing 
that  increased  complexity  of  " matter"  must  necessarily 
result  from  increase  of  condensation,  involving,  as  that 
necessarily  does,  increased  complexity  of  concrete  relations 
in  the  mass;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  this  complexity 
must  grow  less  and  less  with  the  diffusion  of  matter  into 
wider  space. 

We  can  but  conclude,  then,  that  matter  is  not  only 
constituted  by  and  of  force,  and  that  it  is  thus  ultimately 
(at  least  in  a  relative  sense)  homogeneous,  but  also  that 
the  seeming  complexity  of  matter — that  is,  the  multi- 
plicity of  "  elements  " — is  in  reality  but  the  increasingly 
complex  grouping  of  and  multiplied  tension  between  the 
indefinitely  extended  dynamical  spheres  which  constitute 
the  initial  phase  of  the  development  or  manifestation  of 
force — the  added  complexity  of  grouping  and  increased 
intensity  of  relation  being  due  to  the  steadily  accumulating 


AND    ITS   SELF-CCWSERVATION.  79 

strain  incident  to  the  condensation  of  nebulous  masses 
into  stars  and  suns  and  their  attendant  spheres. 

It  is  a  notable  fact,  too,  that  even  by  artificial  means  a 
gas  may  be  subjected  to  so  great  a  pressure  as  to  cause  it  to 
give  off  a  continuous  spectrum.  It  is  as  if,  out  of  a  single 
element,  the  increased  complexity  of  grouping  of  centers 
of  force  together  with  the  intensified  strain  between  those 
centers  corresponding  to  increase  in  the  number  of  ele- 
ments by  the  analogous  process  exhibited  on  the  grand 
scale  in  nature  could  thus  temporarily  be  reproduced  at 
will  in  the  laboratory. 


CHAPTEK  VI. 

DEFINITE    QUANTITATIVE    RELATIONS   IN    MATTER. 

WE  have  seen  that  as  the  qualitative  relations  of 
matter  develop  into  increased  definiteness  they 
necessarily  involve  quantitative  aspects  also,  though  this 
has  appeared  thus  far  only  in  the  form  of  indefinite  mul- 
tiplicity. We  have  now  to  trace  this  quantitative  aspect 
into  its  more  precise  forms. 

The  elements  of  which  we  have  just  traced  the  origin 
constitute  in  large  measure  the  subject-matter  of  what  is 
known  as  modern  chemistry.  It  was  largely  in  the  inter- 
ests of  chemistry  that  the  atomic  theory  was  revived  in 
modern  times;  and  it  is  directly  in  the  field  of  chemis- 
try that  the  more  elaborate  part  of  the  theory  in  its  spe- 
cially modern  character,  and  particularly  in  its  quantita- 
tive aspects,  has  been  developed.  The  "  atomic  weights  " 
of  the  several  elements  have  been  ascertained  with  at 
least  the  appearance  of  great  precision. 

Nor  is  there  any  sufficient  reason  to  call  in  question 
the  substantial  accuracy  of  these  results,  so  far  as  they  are 
understood  merely  as  the  expression  of  the  quantitative 
relations  necessarily  involved  in  matter.  And,  as  we 
have  already  mentioned,  the  more  advanced  chemists 
themselves  regard  the  "atom"  as  hypothetical,  and  even 
look  to  an  entire  change  of  view  respecting  the  so-called 
"elements. " 

80 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  81 

What  has  thus  far  been  said,  then,  far  from  conflicting 
with  the  assured  results  of  science,  proves  rather  to  be 
quite  in  harmony  with  those  results.  The  only  conflict 
developed  is  with  what  scientists  themselves  have  already 
begun  to  call  in  question,  and  which  they  are  definitely 
prepared  to  set  aside  as  forming  no  necessary  part  of  any 
of  the  various  phases  of  truth  which  science  has  brought 
to  light  and  verified  beyond  all  reasonable  question. 

It  will  be  quite  in  the  direct  line  of  our  inquiry  to 
trace  some  of  the  more  characteristic  of  the  confirma- 
tions which  science  presents  to  our  theory,  and  to  develop 
such  consequences  as  the  theory  thus  confirmed  may  be 
found  to  involve. 

We  may  recall  that  the  development  of  the  interrela- 
tions of  attraction  and  repulsion  necessarily  involve  on 
the  one  hand  the  unifying  of  matter  in  that  at  every  point 
there  is  a  center  of  attraction  fundamentally  related  to 
the  whole  of  the  material  universe.  This,  as  has  been 
shown,  is  involved  in  the  received  statement  that  every 
particle  of  matter  attracts  every  other  particle  of  matter, 
— an  expression  which,  developed  so  as  to  explicitly  con- 
form to  the  conception  that  matter  has  its  substance  in 
force,  would  take  the  form:  Every  nucleus  of  force  radi- 
ates outward  to  the  farthest  points  of  space  and  takes 
hold  on  every  other  nucleus  of  force. 

Thus,  it  may  be  remarked  by  the  way,  the  physical  uni- 
verse, regarded  as  commensurate  with  space,  is  a  verita- 
ble sphere  whose  center  is  everywhere  and  whose  circum- 
ference is  nowhere.  It  is  also  manifest  that  there  is  no 
possible  object  in  space  that  can  be  in  absolute  isolation, 
since  even  the  simplest  force-center  still  radiates  outward 
into  the  whole  of  immensity. 


82  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

The  smallest  thing  in  the  universe,  then,  is  still,  in  its 
truth,  commensurate  with  the  universe  itself.  The  small 
is  not  merely  included  within  the  great;  the  great  is  also 
included  within  the  small.  Each  presupposes  the  other 
and  could  not  exist  without  the  other.  Force  regarded 
as  attraction,  let  us  repeat,  then,  unifies  the  extended 
world  absolutely,  gathers  the  physical  universe  into  an 
absolutely  indivisible  One. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  have  also  seen  that 
the  complementary  mode  of  force,  namely,  repulsion,  puts 
restraint  upon  this  unifying  tendency  and  gives  rise  to  an 
infinitude  of  independent  centers  within  the  all-embracing 
one.  And  yet  this  one  itself  is  but  the  totality  of  rela- 
tions between  attraction  and  repulsion.  Thus  the  One, 
as  this  totality  of  relations,  itself  gives  rise  to  an  infini- 
tude of  ones  within  itself,  each  of  which  in  turn  is  essen- 
tially related  to  the  whole,  and  thus  also  to  all  the  other 
ones. 

Thus  the  phase  of  unity  finds  its  necessary  comple- 
ment in  an  infinite  multiplicity  which,  however,  still 
proves  to  be  but  a  mode  of  the  unity  itself.  The  appear- 
ance of  multiplicity  is  but  the  unfolding  of  the  unity. 
The  qualitative  distinctions  as  they  emerge  into  view 
prove  to  already  necessarily  involve  quantitative  distinc- 
tions also.  Each  center  of  force  is  already  something 
definitely  opposed  to,  as  well  as  connected  with,  every 
other  center  of  force.  And  each  in  comparison  with 
every  other  is  seen  to  be  necessarily  a  greater,  or  a  less, 
or  an  equal,  as  regards  that  other. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AS   TO   CONTINUITY   AND   DISCRETENESS  OF  QUANTITY    IN 
MATTER. 

AT  this  point  we  come  upon  the  question  as  to  the 
relation  between  continuous  and  discrete  quantity 
in  matter.  And  in  our  search  for  the  answer  to  this 
question  we  have  but  to  revert  to  what  has  already  pre- 
ceded. We  have  seen  that  matter,  as  constituted  of  force, 
is  simply  a  manifestation  of  the  relations  between  the 
complementary  modes  or  phases  of  force — attraction  and 
repulsion.  But  the  interaction  of  these  phases  of  force 
cannot  but  result  in  the  focusing  at  every  point  in  space  of 
a  greater  or  less  intensity  of  strain  between  those  phases. 
And  yet  each  of  these  foci  of  force  necessarily  ex- 
tends outward  so  as  to  act  upon,  and  in  turn  to  be  reacted 
upon  by,  every  other  focus  of  force.  Thus  constituted, 
then,  matter  is  necessarily  continuous.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  the  very  focusing  of  force  through  the  interac- 
tion of  its  two  complementary  modes  is  a  setting  up  of 
distinctions  which  necessarily  mark  off  or  limit  one  por- 
tion of  matter  as  thus  far  separate,  at  least  quantitatively, 
from  every  other  portion.  Whence  it  is  to  be  concluded 
that  matter  is  not  merely  continuous,  but  is  also  at  the 
same  time,  and  not  less  truly,  discrete.  That  is,  the  same 
totality  presents  itself  under  the  two  different  but  also 
complementary  aspects  of  discreteness  and  continuity. 


84  THE    WOKLD-ENERGY 

Thus  in  a  concrete  sense  the  continuity  of  matter 
necessarily  implies  the  absolute  fluidity  of  matter;  just 
as,  on  the  other  hand,  the  discreteness  of  matter  no  less 
necessarily  implies  its  perfect  rigidity.  But  it  is  precisely 
in  this  concrete  sense,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that 
matter  (that  is,  force)  in  its  very  character  of  the  con- 
tinuous develops  within  itself  infinite  discreteness.  The 
infinite  fluidity  of  the  extended  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  the  varying  relation  between  the  complementary 
aspects  of  force,  known  as  attraction  and  repulsion, 
whereby  any  and  every  given  quantity  of  "matter"  is 
constantly  undergoing  expansion  or  contraction,  and 
whereby,  at  any  given  moment,  therefore,  the  complete 
disruption  of  the  given  quantity  of  matter  may  begin; 
following  which,  or  even  accompanying  which,  such  given 
quantity  may  become  completely  fused  with  other  quan- 
tities and  thus  undergo  entire  re-constitution.  And 
it  may  be  that  the  conception  here  presented  is  not  so 
very  far  removed  from  that  of  the  perfectly  elastic  fluid 
which,  in  the  vortex-atom  theory,  is  assumed  to  fill  all 
space. 

Here,  then,  the  puzzle  of  the  infinite  divisibility  of 
matter  finds  its  solution.  Considered  as  continuous  merely, 
matter  is,  like  space,  infinitely  divisible ;  for  as  simply 
continuous  matter  must  be  as  absolutely  indifferent  to 
division  as  is  space  itself.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  matter 
considered  as  merely  discrete — and  such  the  atomic  theory 
makes  it — cannot  possibly  be  thought  as  undergoing  infinite 
division,  since  it  has  already  undergone  final  division,  and 
hence  consists  of  ultimate,  unalterable  particles. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  reconciliation  of  these 
two  apparently  irreconcilable  views  is  found  in  the  fore- 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  85 

going  conception  of  matter  as  force  which  necessarily  so 
unfolds  itself  as  to  present  everywhere  two  primary  and 
complementary  aspects  rendering  matter  fluid  through- 
out its  whole  extent,  and  at  the  same  time  specializing  it 
into  more  or  less  complex  and  distinct,  but  still  more  or 
less  unstable,  concrete  masses.  As  is  well  known,  the 
densest  mass  still  retains  the  character  of  fluidity.  And 
this  must  be  true  of  the  minutest  (i  atom"  no  less  than  of 
directly  perceptible  masses. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EXTENSIVE     AND     INTENSIVE     PHASES    OF    QUANTITY     IN 
MATTER. 

TT  is  to  be  noted  that,  in  so  far  as  matter  is  considered 
-*•  as  merely  continuous,  its  qualitative  characteristics 
do  not  appear.  On  the  other  hand,  its  discrete  character 
arises  from  distinctively  qualitative  phases  of  the  relation 
between  attraction  and  repulsion.  It  is  precisely  through 
qualitatively  developed  differences  that  discrete  quantity 
is  perceivable  in  matter. 

But  the  more  and  less  of  strain,  as  between  the  con- 
centrative  and  the  expansive  tendencies,  within  any  given 
sphere  involves  still  another  quantitative  contrast.  With 
diminished  strain  there  is  a  canceling  of  qualitative  differ- 
ences and  an  increase  in  mere  space-occupancy.  As  the 
tension  diminishes  the  extension  increases.  That  is,  the 
intensive  quantity  proves  to  be  inversely  as  the  extensive 
quantity. 

Here,  indeed,  then,  comes  to  light  the  deeper  meaning 
involved  in  the  contrast  between  extensive  and  intensive 
quantity,  as  set  forth  in  the  ordinary  formal  logic.  There 
the  term  having  the  greatest  extent  of  meaning  is  ordina- 
rily understood  to  be  merely  the  most  abstract  term,  since, 
in  order  to  increase  the  number  of  objects  included  within 
it,  the  term  must  be  restricted  to  fewer  and  fewer  distin- 
guishing characteristics.  That  is,  with  increase  of  extent 
there  must  necessarily  be  decrease  of  intent  or  content. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  87 

So  that,  formally,  the  intensive  phase  of  quantity  must  be 
completely  set  aside  in  precisely  the  same  measure  that  the 
extensive  phase  is  brought  into  prominence. 

But  "set  aside"  may  also  mean,  "held  in  abeyance," 
rendered  latent  or  potential.  It  is  evident,  for  example, 
that  the  matter  of  a  nebula  is,  in  the  first  place,  quantita- 
tively extensive  ;  and  yet  the  quantity  will  not  be  dimin- 
ished by  its  development  of  the  intensive  phase  through 
condensation  into  a  planetary  system,  with  the  resultant 
unfolding  of  chemical  elements,  followed  by  the  appear- 
ance of  the  whole  vast  order  of  compounds  in  vegetal 
and  animal  organisms. 

Doubtless  through  this  development  (which  is  also  an 
envelopment)  there  will  be  a  differentiation  of  tendency 
toward  the  merely  extensive  phase  of  quantity  in  the  sub- 
stance through  the  radiation  of  the  most  diffusible  phases 
of  the  substance  into  space  as  the  concentrative  process 
goes  on.  But  also  in  this  concentrative  process  the  ten- 
dency toward  diffusion,  toward  mere  extensive  quantity, 
still  remains  as  a  necessary  factor  in  every  stage  of  the 
condensation.  For  while  the  latter  is  the  process  in  which 
the  intensive  phase  of  quantity  is  realized,  there  is  also 
necessarily  involved  in  this  the  development  of  the  ten- 
dency toward  expansion,  toward  diffusion,  toward  the 
extensive  aspect  of  quantity.  Or,  in  the  more  concrete 
terms  of  physical  science,  pressure  toward  a  common 
center  must  inevitably  develop  its  complement,  heat, 
which  is  pressure  away  from  the  common  center.  * 

*  Professor  Helmholz's  calculation  showing  that  the  continued  high  tem- 
perature of  the  sun  is  fully  accounted  for  by  its  continued  concentration 
upon  its  own  center  will  doubtless  occur  to  the  reader  as  verifying  what  is 
said  in  the  text. 


88  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

In  the  same  way,  also,  the  extensive  term  in  logic  im- 
plies, though  it  does  not  explicitly  include,  all  the  charac- 
teristics of  all  the  special  objects  included  under  it.  The 
term  "rock"  formally  excludes  all  the  special  characteris- 
tics, which  distinguish  granite  from  sandstone,  and  either 
from  marble.  But  since  the  term  "rock"  includes  all 
these,  there  is  implicit  in  it  all  that  belongs  to  whatever 
objects  it  may  be  applied  to. 

The  quantity  of  steam  used  in  propelling  a  ship  in  safety 
from  New  York  to  Liverpool  would,  if  developed  instanta- 
neously in  its  boilers,  inevitably  shatter  the  ship  to  atoms. 
The  quantity  might  be  precisely  the  same  in  either  case; 
but  in  the  former  it  would  be  predominantly  extensive, 
while  in  the  latter  it  would  be  predominantly  intensive. 
In  either  case  the  qualitative  result  depends  upon  the 
relation  between  the  extensive  and  the  intensive  aspect  of 
the  quantity  of  force  in  exercise. 

With  continued  preponderance  of  attraction,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  there  is  also  corresponding  increase  in 
the  development  of  qualitative  characteristics,  from  the 
diffuse,  almost  qualitiless  nebula,  to  the  solid  earth,  with 
its  intense  strain  of  forces  and  endless  wealth  of  quali- 
tative developments.  At  the  beginning  of  this  process  of 
concentration  the  quantity  of  matter  is  indeed  mainly 
extensive,  and  hence  only  in  the  simplest  degree  special- 
ized in  point  of  quality.  At  the  very  outset,  indeed,  this 
extremely  diffuse  matter  is  already  found  to  qualitatively 
distinguish  itself  into  the  two  opposite  but  complementary 
phases  of  attraction  and  repulsion. 

Now,  extension  is  itself  a  universal  form  of  all  physical 
magnitude,  while  magnitude,  as  a  phase  of  extended  real- 
ity, is  a  given  quantity  of  matter,  which  must  necessarily 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  89 

be  both  extensive  and  intensive,  these  phases  appear- 
ing always  as  reciprocals.  So  that  attraction  and  re- 
pulsion are,  in  the  first  place,  the  initial  and  funda- 
mental qualitative  differences,  constituting  the  reality  of 
matter,  or  the  extended.  And  the  varying  relations 
between  these  complementary  phases  of  the  extended 
must  involve  the  whole  series  of  relations  between  exten- 
sive and  intensive  quantity. 

At  the  same  time,  the  transition  in  matter  from  the 
state  in  which  its  quantity  is  predominantly  extensive  to 
that  in  which  the  quantity  is  predominantly  intensive 
proves  to  be  a  process  of  qualitative  evolution.  That  is, 
the  increase  in  the  degree  of  strain  between  attraction 
and  repulsion  within  any  given  quantity  of  matter  results 
necessarily  in  the  increased  complexity  of  qualitative 
manifestations  within  the  matter. 

Attraction  and  repulsion,  then,  appear  in  the  first 
place  as  if  merely  qualitative;  but  as  the  complementary 
phases  of  the  extended  they  prove  also  to  be  quantitative, 
while  their  varying  quantitative  relations  under  the  re- 
ciprocal forms  of  extensive  and  intensive  quantity  again 
give  rise  to  an  infinitude  of  qualitative  determinations. 
So  that  quality  and  quantity  prove  to  be  but  different 
aspects  of  the  same  sum  of  facts  in  the  physical  universe. 
And  science  has  for  its  special  mission  to  unfold  into 
explicit  form  the  orderly  representation  of  this  entire 
sphere  of  relations. 

A  few  illustrations,  selected  mainly  from  chemistry, 
may  serve  to  make  clearer  the  truth  of  what  we  have  just 
been  saying. 

It  has  already  been  more  than  once  remarked  in  the 
present  inquiry  that  the  condensation  of  a  nebulous  mass 


90  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

into  solid  spheres  must,  through  an  increasing  strain 
between  attraction  and  repulsion,  develop  as  a  phase  of 
that  strain  a  correspondingly  increasing  tension  in  and 
between  the  local  centers  of  force  constituting  the  sub- 
stance of  the  sphere,  and  that  increase  of  such  local  ten- 
sion is  the  real  secret  of  the  development  of  the  so-called 
chemical  elements.  It  is  now  to  be  added  to  this  that 
the  farther  this  process  of  condensation  has  advanced  in 
any  given  portion  of  the  developing  system  the  greater 
will  be  not  only  the  actual  number  of  these  elements,  but 
also  of  the  actual  number  and  complexity  of  the  combina- 
tions of  these  elements.  All  chemical  compounds  appear 
as  manifestations  of  the  special  phase  of  attraction  known 
as  <( affinity."  At  the  same  time  chemical  decomposition 
also  appears  as  a  negative  aspect  of  chemical  combination; 
for  the  separation  or  dissolution  of  a  compound  may  be 
due  to  the  approach  of  an  element  between  which  and 
one  of  the  elements  of  the  compound  there  is  a  still 
stronger  attraction  or  "affinity"  than  exists  between  the 
elements  already  in  combination,  That  is,  the  breaking 
up  of  an  existing  compound  may  be  involved  in  the  very 
process  of  the  formation  of  a  new  compound.  One  degree 
of  attraction  is  annulled  in  its  qualitative  result  by  the 
interposition  of  a  greater  degree  of  attraction,  bringing 
about  a  different  result. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  phase  of  repulsion,  as  such, 
must  tend  toward  the  complete  disintegration  of  all  com- 
pounds. As  the  separative  phase  of  force  it  still  further 
tends  to  dissolve  all  solids  and  to  dissipate  all  liquids  into 
vapor,  and  again  to  still  further  attenuate  the  vapor  until 
it  ceases  to  belong  to  the  type  of  ponderable  matter  at  all, 
and  thus  comes  to  exist  in  the  state  of  imponderable 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSEBVATION.  91 

space-filling  substance,  where,  as  we  have  previously 
intimated,  it  is  the  true  ether.  Such  would  seem  to  be 
the  legitimate  inference.  And  in  any  case  it  is  evident 
that  where  the  separative  tendency  as  yet  greatly  over- 
balances the  tendency  toward  concentration,  the  number 
and  complexity  of  chemical  compounds  must  be  corre- 
spondingly limited.  So  that  in  the  sun,  for  example,  with 
its  enormously  high  temperature — that  is,  with  the  still 
existing  relatively  intense  repulsion  or  strain  toward  sep- 
aration— the  number  of  chemical  compounds  must  be 
exceedingly  few  and  those  compounds  must  be  of  the 
simplest  character.  More  explicitly,  it  is  impossible  that 
oxygen  and  hydrogen  should  there  realize  their  combi- 
native tendency  in  the  actual  formation  of  water,  even  in 
the  vaporous  state,  while  not  a  single  one  of  the  whole 
series  of  known  carbon  compounds  can  possibly  exist 
otherwise  than  in  the  purely  potential  state. 

It  is  to  be  noted  further  that  the  whole  of  modern 
chemistry  is  built  up  from  the  precise  quantitative  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  "  elements. "  So  that  on  this 
side  chemistry  is  simply  one  form  of  applied  mathematics. 
As  M.  Berthelot  declares  in  closing  his  remarkable  work, 
" Essai  de  Mecanique  CMmique,"  chemistry  "approaches 
more  and  more  nearly  to  that  ideal  conception,  followed 
out  for  so  many  years  by  the  efforts  of  scholars  and  of 
philosophers,  in  which  all  speculations  and  all  discoveries 
tend  to  establish  (concourent  vers)  the  unity  of  the  uni- 
versal law  of  natural  movements  and  forces."  That  is, 
chemistry  is  coming  more  and  more  to  be  regarded  as 
simply  a  branch  of  mechanics  in  the  general  sense  of  the 
term  in  proportion  as  chemical  phenomena  are  found  to 
be  capable  of  mathematical  treatment.  At  the  same  time 


92  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

this  in  no  way  obscures  the  fact  that  each  new  compound 
developed  through  change  in  quantitative  relations  ex- 
hibits new  qualitative  characteristics.  Take,  for  exam- 
ple, the  simplest  cases — those  of  allotropic  substances. 
Oxygen  combines  with  itself,  the  result  being  what  is 
called  ozone.  The  quantitative  change  is  simply  one 
from  extensive  to  intensive  quantity.  Externally  the 
only  change  is  a  reduction  of  one-third  in  volume.  So, 
too,  carbon  presents  the  three  strikingly  different  states  of 
graphite,  coal,  and  diamond,  by  mere  variety  in  the  com- 
bination of  carbon  particles  with  carbon  particles. 

The  same  remarkable  development  of  qualitative  dif- 
ference through  mere  change  in  quantitative  relation  is  seen 
again  in  all  those  cases  where  one  element  combines  with 
another  in  more  than  one  ratio.  A  conspicuous  example 
is  found  in  the  various  oxides  of  nitrogen,  where  a  con- 
stant quantity  (28  parts  by  weight)  of  nitrogen  combines 
successively  with  five  different  quantities  (16,  32,  48,  64 
and  80  parts  by  weight)  of  oxygen,  producing  as  many 
qualitatively  different  results.  It  is  noticeable  that  each 
succeeding  quantity  of  oxygen  in  the  series  is  a  simple 
multiple  of  the  first.  And  chemists  have  often  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  no  combinations  take  place  be- 
tween these  elements  in  other  proportions  than  those  given. 
It  was  precisely  such  facts  as  these  that  led  Dalton  to  enter 
upon  those  investigations  which  resulted  in  his  revival  of 
the  atomic  theory  under  a  genuinely  scientific  form. 

The  core  of  Dalton's  discovery  is  that  this  combination 
in  definite  proportions  is  the  universal  characteristic  of  all 
chemical  activity — that  chemical  compounds  are,  without 
exception,  dependent  upon  precisely  fixed  quantitative 
relations.  Nor  is  it  without  significance  that  in  Dalton's 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  93 

theory  the  numbers  representing  the  proportions  in  which 
the  elements  combine  have  direct  reference  to  the  weights 
of  the  combining  atoms.  For  weight,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
simply  the  excess  of  attraction  over  centrifugal  force  in 
the  neighborhood  of  a  gravitating  body  like  the  earth. 
So  that  the  relative  weights  of  the  atoms  of  different  ele- 
ments really  means  the  relative  excess  of  attraction  over 
centrifugal  force  as  between  the  earth  on  one  side,  and  the 
atoms  or  force-centers  in  the  elements  taken  severally. 

Now,  the  weight  of  an  atom  of  hydrogen  being  taken 
as  1,  the  weight  of  an  atom  of  nitrogen  is  14,  and  that  of 
an  atom  of  oxygen  is  16.  But  the  simplest  compound  of 
nitrogen  and  oxygen  known  to  take  place  consists  of  two 
parts  of  the  former  and  one  of  the  latter.  Hence  the 
combining  numbers  for  these  two  "elements"  expressed 
in  their  atomic  weights  are:  28  for  nitrogen  and  16  for 
oxygen.  And  since  the  "  atoms "  can  only  combine  as 
wholes,  the  next  more  complex  compound,  supposing  the 
quantity  of  nitrogen  to  remain  fixed,  would  be  that  in 
which  the  quantity  of  oxygen  would  be  doubled,  and  so  on. 

Allowing,  then,  that  the  atom  is  real,  not  as  an  infin- 
itely hard,  absolutely  fixed  particle  of  something  existing 
independently  of  force,  but  rather  as  itself  simply  a  focus 
of  force  which  constitutes  a  relation  that  must  remain 
fixed  so  long  as  the  surrounding  conditions  remain  ap- 
proximately the  same ;  allowing  this,  we  can  see  that  the 
law  of  multiple  proportions  only  becomes  the  more  sig- 
nificant, without  losing  in  any  degree  its  simplicity. 

This  law,  indeed,  but  expresses  the  fixed  relation  be- 
tween the  general  mass  of  the  earth  in  its  present  rela- 
tively matured  stage  of  condensation  and  the  various 
classes  of  force-centers  constituting,  through  their  varied 


94  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

intensive  quantities,  the  qualitatively  different  phases  of 
force-substance  known  as  the  elements,  and  in  any  given 
case  arbitrarily  assumed  not  to  be  of  the  earth's  mass. 
In  reality,  the  mass  of  the  earth  holds  these  force-centers 
in  definite  relation  to  itself/ and  in  definite  relations  to  one 
another.  Thus  many  compounds  take  place  " naturally" 
(the  mass  and  temperature  being  what  they  are)  which 
would  be  impossible  as  "natural"  compounds  on  the  sur- 
face of  a  sphere  of  very  much  less  mass,  or  of  very  much 
greater  temperature.  In  short,  all  chemical  compounds 
must  arise  as  the  realization  of  inherent  relations  of 
attraction  and  repulsion  between  definitely  determined 
force-centers,  which,  doubtless,  there  is  110  harm  in  call- 
ing atoms.  And  should  there  be  more  than  one  compound 
possible  between  any  two  elements,  as  in  the  example  of 
oxygen  and  nitrogen  cited  above,  it  is  evident  that  the 
several  compounds  formed  must  show  in  the  successive 
groups  of  atoms  that  the  combining  numbers  of  one  or 
the  other  element  stand  to  each  other  in  such  relation 
that  all  after  the  first  are  exact  multiples  of  the  first. 

The  law  of  multiple  proportions,  however,  presents  the 
external  conditions  of  chemical  combinations;  or,  more 
precisely,  the  qualitative  relations  here  presented  are 
figured  rather  as  the  relations  of  extensive  quantity.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  phase  of  intensive  quantity  is  shown 
in  affinity,  properly  speaking — in  the  energy  of  attraction 
between  the  particles  themselves.  At  the  same  time 
there  is,  as  must  ever  be  the  case,  a  variation  of  the 
intensive  quantity  presented  in  the  compound,  through  a 
variation  in  the  extensive  quantity  of  combination.  And 
this  variation  of  the  intensive  quantity  is  precisely  what 
determines  the  qualitative  differences  of  the  several 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSEKVATIOJtf.  95 

compounds.  Thus,  the  several  oxides  of  nitrogen  already 
referred  to  present  each  its  own  group  of  distinguishing 
qualitative  characteristics. 

The  whole  of  chemistry  is,  indeed,  but  an  extended  illus- 
tration of  this,  so  that  we  need  here  do  no  more  than  call 
special  attention  to  the  immense  number  of  exceedingly 
complex  compounds  which  carbon  forms  with  one  or  more 
of  the  three  other  elements,  oxygen,  hydrogen  and  nitro- 
gen— the  great  number  of  the  compounds  being  rendered 
possible,  as  the  chemists  assure  us,  by  a  "fundamental 
and  distinctive  property  of  carbon  itself."  That  property 
is  the  power,  possessed  by  no  other  element  in  so  high  a 
degree,  of  combining  with  itself,  and  forming  a  variable 
basis  for  multitudes  of  complicated  compounds  involving 
one  or  more  of  the  other  elements  just  named. 

The  point  we  have  here  specially  to  emphasize  is,  that 
the  mere  variation  of  the  quantitative  relations  in  the 
combinations  of  these  four  elements  gives  rise  to  the  entire 
series  of  qualitative  differences  which  lend  such  immense 
variety  to  the  products,  both  of  the  vegetal  and  of  the 
animal  world. 

To  what  has  been  said  respecting  the  relation  between 
extensive  and  intensive  quantity  as  illustrated  in  chem- 
istry, there  may  be  added  the  following,  from  what  is 
known  of  electricity.  Statical  electricity  is  said  to  be 
characterized  by  intensity,  while  dynamical  electricity  is 
distinguished  by  its  quantity.  And  yet  these  two  modes 
of  electricity  do  not  differ  in  kind,  but  rather  in  the 
mode  of  their  development,  which  fact  becomes  explicit 
in  the  alternative  names:  frictional  and  chemical 
electricity.  Not  only  so,  but  a  Leyden  jar  may  as  well 


96  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

be  charged  from  a  Voltaic  battery,  as  from  an  electrical 
machine. 

The  real  truth  of  the  relation  between  statical  and 
dynamical  electricity  comes  out  in  the  estimate  of  Fara- 
day,* that  a  current  of  dynamical  electricity  which  would 
decompose  a  single  grain  of  water  by  acting  upon  it  during 
three  and  three-fourths  minutes  would,  if  its  whole  force 
were  expended  instantaneously,  be  equal  in  intensity  to  a 
powerful  flash  of  lightning.  Here  the  quantity  of  force 
is  evidently  the  same.  Acting  through  a  longer  time,  it  is 
extensive  quantity;  while  the  instantaneous  expenditure 
of  its  whole  energy  presents  the  same  quantity  of  force 
under  the  character  of  intensive  quantity. 

Statical  electricity,  then,  is  a  phase  of  force,  whose 
quantity  is  characteristically  intensive,  while  dynamical 
electricity  is  a  phase  of  force  whose  quantity  is  characteris- 
tically extensive.  And,  as  is  well  known,  all  that  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  concentrate  the  extensive  quantity  of  the 
latter,  so  that  its  manifestation  shall  be  specifically  inten- 
sive, is  to  introduce  into  its  circuit  an  induction  coil. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  "intensity"  of  statical 
electricity  is  simply  intensive  quantity,  while  the  "  quan- 
tity "  of  dynamical  electricity  is  quantity  manifested  under 
the  specific  character  of  extensive  quantity.  And  when 
it  is  said  that  quantity  and  intensity  are  inversely  the  one 
as  the  other  in  electricity,  it  is  evident  that  this  is  but 
a  loose  way  of  saying  that  in  any  given  quantity  of  elec- 
tricity— as  of  any  other  phase  of  force — :the  extensive  and 
the  intensive  aspects  are  reciprocals.  • 

*See  his  "Experimental  Researches  in  Electricity,"  (3d  Ed.)  L,  250. 


OHAPTEE    IX. 

MEASUEE   AND   THE   MEASUEELESS. 

WE  have  thus  seen  that  the  extended  world  is  first 
known  to  us  through  the  qualitative  differences 
of  attraction  and  repulsion;  that  these  in  turn,  through 
their  necessary  interactions,  develop,  or  rather  are  seen  to 
involve,  an  unlimited  complex  of  quantitative  relations; 
and  again,  that  these  quantitative  relations  reciprocally 
serve  to  render  completely  explicit  a  whole  world  of  qual- 
itative characteristics.  It  is  also  evident  that  these 
mutually  inclusive  qualitative  and  quantitative  relations 
constitute  the  reality  of  the  extended  world. 

Let  us  noAV  inquire  further  of  this  extended  world  and 
obtain,  as  far  as  we  may,  a  more  adequate  knowledge  of 
its  fundamental  character  and  modes  of  existence. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  whatever  knowledge 
we  possess  of  the  quantitative  relations  of  this  extended 
world  must  involve  comparison  of  one  phase  with  another. 
But  these  comparisons  also  imply  a  fixed  standard.  And 
comparison  with  a  fixed  standard  constitutes  measure. 

At  the  same  time,  we  must  soon  become  aware  that  all 
standards  of  measurement  in  the  extended  world  must  be 
arbitrary,  and  hence  the  measure  must  be  purely  relative. 
Hence,  it  may  be  remarked  by  the  way,  there  can  be  no 
absolute  distinction  between  extensive  and  intensive  quan- 
tity. On  the  contrary,  a  given  quantity  may  be  regarded 
as  either  extensive  or  intensive,  according  to  the  standard 

A^     /"»!»    Trt-TT»         *• 


98  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

of  comparison.  The  rending  force  of  gunpowder  would 
be  regarded  as  intensive  compared  with  that  of  freezing 
water,  while  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  rather  bear  the 
character  of  extensive  quantity,  when  compared  with 
dynamite.  In  other  words,  any  given  quantity  of  energy 
is  not  merely  extensive  or  intensive;  it  is  both  extensive 
and  intensive.  The  distinction  between  these  phases  can 
never  be  suppressed,  while,  at  the  same  time,  their  unity 
is  inseparable. 

And  yet  all  measure  proves  to  be  relative,  even  abso- 
lutely relative.  So  that,  as  it  seems  to  turn  out,  we  know 
absolutely  that  all  our  knowledge,  especially  our  exact 
knowledge,  is  relative.  It  is  a  hopeful-discouraging  out- 
come. Assuredly,  if  we  are  anywhere  to  obtain  knowledge 
that  may  be  called  absolute,  it  must  be  in  the  realm  of 
measure,  which  is  pre-eminently  the  realm  of  the  exact 
sciences.  There  is,  at  least,  one  science  universally  ac- 
knowledged to  be  exact — the  science  of  pure  quantity,  or 
mathematics.  And  yet,  even  here,  there  have  been  skep- 
tical murmurings,  not  to  say  loud  protests.  The  very 
axioms  of  mathematics  have  been  called  in  question.* 
And  not  only  so,  but  here  and  there,  especially  in  the 
applications  of  mathematics,  there  is  full  confession  of  the 
necessity  of  approximation,  as  will  be  seen  more  fully 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  subject  of  motion.  So  that 
a  momentary  shadow  of  suspicion  arises  lest  the  very  sci- 
ence in  which  men  have  so  long  confided  with  absolute 
serenity  may  prove  to  be,  after  all,  only  the  exact  science  of 
approximation.  And  so  much  the  more  as  those  sciences 
which  have  come  to  be  called  "  exact/"  through  the 

*  See,  for  example,  Helmholz's  criticism  cm  The  Axioms  of  Mathematics, 
in  his  Popular  Scientific  Lectures  (Second  Series). 


AND    ITS   SELF- CONSERVATION.  99 

application  of  mathematics  to  them,  must  keep  within  the 
limits  of  measure,  seeing  that  they  have  constantly  to  do 
with  the  quantitative  phases  of  the  extended  world,  and 
must,  therefore,  bear  the  mark  of  "relativity"  inherent 
in  all  things  within  the  realm  of  measure. 

In  sober  truth,  that  the  application  of  mathematics  to 
the  actual  extended  world  may  be  brought  within  the 
range  of  finite  powers  of  thinking,  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
fine the  calculations  to  a  simple  set  of  relations  more  or 
less  arbitrarily  chosen,  and  to  regard  this  set  of  relations 
as  if  completely  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  universe. 
For  example,  Thomson  and  Tait,  in  their  "  Treatise  on 
Natural  Philosophy,"  call  special  attention  to  the  fact 
that  even  in  so  simple  a  case  as  that  of  the  investigation 
of  the  lever  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  a  lever  is  a 
bar,  perfectly  rigid,  inflexible,  and  without  weight — an 
assumption  which,  of  course,  can  never  be  realized. 

In  short,  the  assumption  made  in  every  single  instance 
in  the  application  of  mathematics  to  the  concrete  sciences 
is  more  or  less  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  actual  facts. 
Or,  if  not  exactly  this,  at  least  all  except  certain  more  or 
less  arbitrarily  chosen  aspects  of  those  facts  are  of  neces- 
sity ignored  in  each  and  every  problem  proposed. 

It  is  true  that  the  very  purpose  of  the  mathematical 
phase  of  the  sciences  is  to  discover  the  exact  measure  of 
things.  And  yet  the  really  exact  is  not  the  approximately 
exact.  The  former  is,  no  doubt,  that  which  is  desired, 
though  the  latter  is  the  utmost  that  is  ever  actually 
attained.  The  " exact  sciences"  propose  an  ideal  which 
they  can  never  hope  to  realize ;  and  this  is  inevitable  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case.  The  so-called  exact  sciences 
are  necessarily  restricted  to  the  realm  of  measure — that  is, 


100  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

to  the  realm  of  infinite.  For  in  every  such  case  measure 
consists  in  the  comparison  of  any  given  object  with  an 
arbitrarily  chosen,  and  therefore  finite,  standard.  Every- 
thing measured  is  by  that  fact  limited.  Hence  it  is  that 
the  realm  of  mathematics  is  the  realm  of  finite  thought. 

At  the  same  time,  we  have  seen  that  the  sum-total  of 
the  extended  world  is  necessarily  a  unit — a  whole  of 
which  the  infinitely  varied  phases  constitute  the  specific 
objects  of  all  sense-perception.  That  is,  these  objects 
are  but  the  precisely  defined  forms  resulting  from  the 
activity  of  the  total  World-Energy. 

But  measure  is  the  comparison  of  these  various  forms, 
one  with  another,  or  with  some  purely  conventional  stand- 
ard. That  is,  these  forms  present  the  only  realm  of  the 
actually  measurable ;  so  that  the  world,  as  a  whole,  thus 
proves  to  be  measureless. 

And  yet  these  forms,  we  have  just  seen,  are  not  only  the 
specific  objects  of  sense-perception,  but  they  are  also  the 
direct  product  of  the  activity  of  the  World-Energy.  They 
are  modes  of  its  manifestation.  In  other  words,  the 
measurable  proves  to  be  just  a  phase  of  the  measureless. 
Or,  again,  the  measurable  is  found  to  constitute  the 
modes  in  which  the  measureless  manifests  itself.  Nay, 
Mr.  Spencer  himself,  as  we  remember,  allows  that  even 
the  "Unknowable"  has  an  established  order  of  self- 
manifestation. 

Thus  the  measurable  is  found  to  be  the  finite,  while 
the  measureless  is  the  infinite ;  so  that  the  finite  is  not 
something  contrasted  with  the  infinite,  but  is  in  truth  a 
mode  or  phase  of  the  infinite.  Otherwise  the  infinite 
would  have  to  maintain  itself  in  contrast  with,  or  in 
opposition  to,  the  finite.  It  would  then  be  in  external 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  101 

relation  to  the  finite — that  is,  it  would  be  limited  ~by  'the 
finite,  in  which  case  it  would  itself  prove  to  be  something 
finite,  and  not  the  true  infinite. 

Thus  the  infinite  and  the  finite  prove  to  be  but  the 
more  adequate  aspects  of  what  were  previously  called 
continuous  and  discrete  quantity. 

Bjit  here  something  further  suggests  itself.  It  is  this: 
As  the  true  infinite  must  include  the  finite  within  itself 
as  phases  of  itself,,  then  the  infinite  must  be  the  compre- 
hensive total  of  all  reality.  And  as  such  it  must  be  abso- 
lutely equal  with  itself.  It  can  be  compared  with  noth- 
ing else  than  itself,  for  it  is  itself  the  only  reality.  It  is, 
then,  absolutely  immeasurable  by  any  finite  standard,  and 
yet  at  the  same  time  it  is  the  eternally  self-measured. 

Thus  the  finite  is  seen  to  constitute  nothing  else  than 
the  endlessly  varied  modes  of  the  self-measurement  of  the 
true  infinite.  The  world  as  a  whole  is,  therefore,  a 
mighty  process  in  which  all  that  is  finite  or  measur- 
able is  dissolved  and  absolutely  fused  in  the  infinite  or 
measureless. 

In  this  connection  a  significant  hint  is  found  to  be 
latent  in  the  most  elementary  phase  of  mathematics.  The 
beginner  learns  that  "once  one  is  one."  At  a  later  stage 
he  learns  something  of  the  "powers  "of  numbers.  He 
learns  that  2  multiplied  by  itself  produces  4,  while  1 
multiplied  by  itself  is  still  1.  Unity,  he  is  assured,  is 
peculiar  to  itself  in  the  fact  that  it  remains  unchanged, 
however  persistently  it  may  be  multiplied  by  itself. 

Surely  that  is  a  wonderful  property — wonderful,  in- 
deed, if  true!  Let  one  attempt  its  verification  in  prac- 
tice and  see  what  the  result  will  be.  If  1  is  a  line,  then 
1  x  1  is  a  surface — still  1,  it  is  true,  but  1  having  a  quite 


102  THE   WORLD-EKEKGY 

new  value.  So  again  1  x  1  x  1,  is  a  solid.  It  is  still  1,  but 
1  with  added  wealth  of  meaning. 

And  what  do  the  higher  "powers"  of  numbers  signify 
but  varying  degrees  of  "solidity"?  And  what  are  these 
varying  degrees  of  solidity  but  varying  degrees  of  tension 
within  a  given  mass,  resulting  in  qualities — that  is,  in 
enriched  modes  of  existence?  That  plaything  of  modern 
mathematics — the  "fourth  dimension  in  space" — is  in 
truth  a  symbol  representing  the  transition  from  extensive 
to  intensive  quantity.  And  the  higher  "powers"  of 
numbers  in  general  are  nothing  else  than  abstract  ex- 
pressions hinting  obscurely  at  the  concrete  fact  that  the 
more  intensive  a  given  quantity  of  energy  becomes,  the 
richer  does  it  become  in  quality. 

In  other  words,  what  is  commonly  called  quality  as 
distinguished  from  quantity  is  in  reality,  let  us  repeat, 
nothing  else  than  intensive  quantity,  which  is  the  recip- 
rocal of  quantity  in  its  aspect  of  extent. 

But  again,  the  abstract  formula,  1x1  =  1,  not  only 
seems  unquestionable.  It  is  unquestionable  from  two 
points  of  view.  The  first  is  that  point  of  view  (the  usual 
one)  from  which  the  formula  is  taken  in  its  purely  ab- 
stract sense.  In  pure  or  formal  mathematics  the  express- 
ion: Ixl=l2=l  is  faultless.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
second  point  of  view  is  that  in  which  unity  is  taken  in  its 
richest,  most  concrete  significance.  From  this  point  of 
view  it  is  equally  unquestionable  that  the  absolutely  per- 
fect unit,  the  total,  self-sufficing  Energy,  maintains  its 
eternal  self-equality  by  the  faultless  continuity  of  its 
fusion,  its  combination,  its  multiplication  of  itself  with 
itself.  And  here  indeed  the  formula  is  no  longer  1x1  = 
la=l;but  1x1  =  1  a  =1. 


AND   ITS   SELF-COKSEKVATION.  103 

Again,  zero  is  commonly  defined  as  a  symbol  which, 
when  standing  alone,  expresses  no  value.  That  seems 
simple  enough.  And  yet  on  further  examination  the 
symbol  0  represents,  even  in  its  very  lowest  term,  a 
product  of  very  abstract  thinking.  It  really  represents 
the  negation  in  thought  of  all  reality.  That  is,  its 
subjective  meaning  may  be  said  to  be  greatest  when 
its  objective  meaning  is  least.  Or  if,  as  is  sometimes 
done,  we  take  the  term  "objective"  to  mean  valid, 
true,  then  we  would  have  to  change  the  mode  of  our 
expression,  and  say  that  the  objective  significance  of 
the  term  zero  in  its  ultimate  abstraction  consists  pre- 
cisely in  its  subjective  character.  For  in  its  ultimate 
abstraction  the  term  zero  represents  a  perfectly  valid 
concept  to  which  there  is  no  corresponding  reality  other 
than  the  concept  itself.  It  represents  just  that  nega- 
tive concept  which  consists  in  the  recognition  that 
beyond  reality  there  is  absolutely  no  limitation,  for 
limitation  is  itself  a  mode  of  reality,  or,  if  the  technical 
reader  prefers,  a  mode  of  actuality. 

But  still  further,  in  concrete  science  zero  represents  a 
multitude  of  values  on  occasion.  In  the  higher  geometry 
a  right  line  is  represented  by  an  equation,  of  which  one 
member  is  0.  Again,  in  physics  zero  of  temperature  (Cen- 
tigrade) represents  that  balancing  of  the  molecular  attrac- 
tions and  repulsions  in  water,  the  slightest  disturbance  of 
which  one  way  or  the  other  will  (under  given  conditions 
of  pressure)  cause  the  water  to  assume  the  solid  state  or 
assure  its  remaining  liquid.  But  this  is  by  no  means  all. 
The  theoretical  "absolute  zero"  (273°  below  0  Centi- 
grade) gives  a  scale  in  which  0  Centigrade  is  found  to 
represent  an  "absolute"  positive  temperature  of  273°. 


104  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 

It  seems  worth  remarking,  too,  that  the  "absolute 
zero  "  logically  represents  the  complete  absence  of  molec- 
ular repulsions,  and  therefore  also  the  complete  absence 
of  molecular  attractions.  But  this  can  only  mean  the 
complete  absence  of  matter — that  is,  complete  vacuum 
(such  vacuum  itself  being  in  great  danger  of  collapse,  one 
might  suppose). 

But  not  to  extend  illustrations  further,  we  may  say  in 
general  that  in  concrete  science  zero  represents  a  positive 
value;  and  that  value  is  always  of  precisely  one  character. 
It  is  invariably  a  point  of  indifference,  or  equilibrium. 
And  this  is  the  clew  to  the  ultimate,  most  concrete  sig- 
nificance of  zero.  For,  as  representing  the  equilibrium 
of  concrete  modes  of  energy  in  general,  it  becomes  evident 
at  once  that  the  ultimate,  most  concrete  significance  of 
the  symbol,  is  that  of  the  equilibrium,  the  perfect  self- 
poise  of  the  total  Energy;  just  as  1,  in  its  richest  meaning, 
represents  the  absolute  wholeness  of  the  total  Energy. 

Finally,  the  formula  ^  =  oc  is  meaningless  if  0  stands 
for  pure  nothing.  Or,  if  it  represents  any  positive  quan- 
tity, the  formula  is  absurd  if  1  stands  for  any  finite 
quantity.  It  can  have  genuine  concrete  significance  only 
when  1  represents  the  absolute  totality  of  existence,  and  0 
the  absolute  equilibrium  of  that  totality,  in  the  sense  of 
the  absolutely  perfect  method  of  the  totality,  as  self- 
consistent  energy.  In  the  first  of  the  supposed  cases  it 
is  a  formula  of  division,  representing  no-division.  In  the 
last  case  it  represents,  not  the  division  of  one  quantity  by 
another,  but  rather,  the  absolute  self-division  of  the  total 
Energy;  and  such  self -division  is  nothing  else  than  the 
self-specialization,  the  self-differentiation,  that  is,  the 
self-realization  of  the  total  World-Energy. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  105 

Thus,  there  comes  into  something  like  distinct  view 
the  one  central  conception  which  has  been  gradually 
focusing  into  definite  utterance  throughout  the  whole  of 
our  inquiry,  thus  far. 

Before  proceeding  with  the  further  stages  of  the  argu- 
ment, it  seems  worth  while  to  notice  that  the  result  here 
reached  is  altogether  in  agreement  with  the  doctrine  re- 
garding the  relation  between  substance  and  its  attributes, 
as  defined  by  Spinoza.  That  is,  to  use  his  phrase,  "  attri- 
butes are  what  we  may  know  of  substance."  So,  also,  the 
same  results  may  be  reached  through  a  consideration  of 
the  interdependence  of  the  categories  of  Aristotle. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  Aristotle  gathered  his  cate- 
gories together  in  more  or  less  arbitrary  fashion,  from  the 
current  speech  of  his  time.  But  it  is  also  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  his  writings  have  reached  us  in  exceedingly 
fragmentary  form,  and  that  our  judgment  regarding  the 
arbitrariness  of  his  mode  of  procedure  ought  to  be  guarded 
accordingly.  In  any  case,  the  categories  as  they  stand  in 
the  list  handed  down  to  us  as  the  one  he  proposed,  are 
open  for  interpretation.  And  it  seems  but  reasonable 
and  just  to  allow  that  the  most  adequate  and  consistent 
interpretation  which  can  be  given  them  is  the  one  which 
Aristotle  himself  put  upon  them,  in  more  or  less  explicit 
fashion.  Or  if  not  so  much  as  this,  at  least  it  ought  to 
be  allowed  that  such  interpretation  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  general  estimate  he  gave  them. 

Let  us  see,  then,  what  interpretation  will  be  borne  by 
these  categories  as  presented  in  the  Organon.  They  are 
as  follows:  Substance  (ob<rta),  Quantity  (xoffov],  Quality 
(noiov),  Relation  (npos  r:),  Where  (nob),  When  (TTOT^), 


106  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 


Position    (xsiffdat),    Possession    (exetv),    Action    (xoieiv), 
and  Passion  (ndffzzt*;). 

It  is  true  that  in  the  logical  treatise  of  Aristotle  these 
categories  receive  a  treatment  that  seems  rather  formal 
than  essential.  And  yet,  even  here,  and  still  more  strongly 
in  the  metaphysics,  Aristotle  intimates  his  conviction,  not 
only  that  substance  must  be  (logically)  prior  to  its  attri- 
butes in  any  given  object,  but  that  substance  is  one  and 
indivisible,  as  well  as  primal  and  primordial. 

Doubtless  this  would  be  a  somewhat  violent  interpre- 
tation if  taken  from  the  logical  treatise  alone.  But  its 
justification  is  found  to  be  fairly  complete  through  the 
frequent  references  to,  and  even  extended  discussions  of, 
substance  in  the  metaphysics,  where  it  is  represented  as 
equivalent  to  the  very  being,  essence  or  nature  of  a  thing, 
and  where  the  conception  that  substance  must  be  pri- 
marily one  is  explicitly  referred  to  with  approval,  and 
something  approaching  proof  of  its  necessity.  And  when 
taken  in  connection  with  the  outcome  of  the  discussion 
of  the  nature  of  cause,  with  which  he  identifies  substance, 
it  is  fairly  evident  that  the  oiW«  was  to  him  what  sub- 
stance is  in  modern  thought  —  namely,  that  which  sup- 
ports and  unifies  all  attributes,  or  rather,  that  which 
enfolds  all  "attributes"  within  itself,  as  no  thing  else  than 
modes  of  itself.  Thus,  evidently,  it  is  that  without 
which  the  attributes  themselves  could  not  be. 

From  this  point  of  view  it  is  manifest  that  quality  and 
quantity  can  be  real  only  as  attributes  of  substance. 
They  are  simply  the  what-kind  and  the  how-much  of 
substance.  Similarly,  relation  can  exist,  in  the  first 
place,  only  as  between  substance  and  the  attributes  inher- 
ing in  substance,  and  secondly,  as  between  the  attributes 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  107 

themselves.  Indeed,  in  our  present  discussion,  we 
have  seen  that  substance,  so  far  as  the  extended  world 
presents  its  developed  reality,  is  just  the  unity  (relation) 
of  quality  under  the  form  of  mutually  opposed  and  yet 
mutually  inclusive  forces,  on  the  one  hand,  and  quantity, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  measure  or  limitation,  and  hence  as 
a  phase  of  differentiation,  or  the  rendering  explicit  what 
lies  latent  in  substance. 

"Where"  and  "when"  are  manifestly  relations  re- 
spectively of  time  and  place.  "  Position  "  indicates  atti- 
tude or  relative  place,  including  relation  of  part  to  part 
in  the  thing  having  position.  "  Possession  "  is  but  a  rela- 
tion between  a  superior  (more  complex)  and  an  inferior 
(less  complex)  phase  of  substance.  So  that  thus  far,  we 
have  in  reality  but  three  categories  as  attributes  of  sub- 
stance— namely  quantity,  quality,  and  relation. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  noticeable  that  these  three  at- 
tributive categories  could  have  no  existence  apart  from 
substance,  nor  could  substance  exist  without  involving 
what  those  categories  imply.  They  are  essential  phases 
of  substance. 

So,  too,  the  remaining  categories  show  themselves  at 
once  to  be  only  mutually  implying  modes  of  substance. 
For  the  reality  of  substance  can  be  shown  only  in  its 
activity;  and  as  substance  contributes  the  sum-total  of 
reality,  it  must  be  no  less  truly  passive  than  active,  since, 
as  the  total,  it  must  receive  the  whole  of  its  own  activity. 
Passion  or  passivity  is  simply  sufferance  or  receptivity. 
But  receptivity  is  not  merely  passivity ;  it  is  just  as  truly 
activity.  It  is,  in  short,  but  another  name  for  reaction. 
It  may  be  remarked  by  the  way,  then,  that  in  his  categories 
Aristotle  presents  us  with  the  simplest  possible  scheme 


108  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

of  thought.  For  those  categories  are  nothing  else  than 
the  names,  first,  of  that  which  is  necessarily  presupposed 
in  all  thought,  and,  secondly,  of  those  fundamental 
modes  in  which  alone  it  can  be  comprehended  in  thought. 
We  may  criticise  the  list  as  we  will.  It  still  is  a  series  of 
names  representing  concepts  without  which  thought  and 
things  would  be  alike  impossible. 

Let  us  now  remind  ourselves  once  more  that  the  funda- 
mental qualities  of  the  matter  or  substance  of  the  extended 
world  are,  primarily,  attraction  and  repulsion,  and  that 
these  are  opposed  and  yet  also  mutually  inclusive  phases 
of  force.  Whence  it  appears  that  action  and  passion  are 
but  further  (that  is,  more  explicit)  aspects  of  the  neces- 
sary interrelation  between  attraction  and  repulsion.  They 
are  the  phases  of  action  and  reaction  in  the  total  process 
of  the  self-measured. 

We  have  already  seen  how  quality  finds  its  truth  in  the 
intensive  phase  of  quantity.  It  now  appears,  too,  that 
quality  and  quantity  are  but  modes  of  substance,  or  of 
the  self -measured  Total.  So  that  the  ultimate  truth  of 
relation  is  found  to  be  the  self-relation  of  the  Total. 

The  substance  of  the  extended  world,  then,  is  Energy, 
which  presents  itself  as  an  all-inclusive  process,  whose 
fundamental  phases  are  action  and  reaction.  This  is  the 
essence,  the  very  nature,  the  true  internality  of  the 
external  world.  It  is  the  noumenon  or  reality  bringing 
itself  into  open  manifestation  through — or,  rather,  as — 
the  all-pervasive,  all-energizing  process  of  the  world. 
This,  indeed,  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  motion, 
which  involves  not  merely  the  space-relations  already 
brought  under  review,  but  also  the  fundamental  relations 
of  succession — that  is,  time-relations. 


CHAPTER  X. 

OF   THE    POSSIBILITY    OF   MOTION    IN    GENERAL. 

THE  doctrine  of  Heraclitus  that  all  is  a  becoming  was 
unquestionably  the  most  important  phase  of  the  pre- 
Socratic  philosophy.  It  unified  the  elements  which  had 
previously  been  brought  into  definition,  and  which  in  the 
Eleatic  school  were  not  only  opposed  to  each  other,  but 
were  also  held  in  mutual  exclusion.  The  central  doctrine 
of  Parmenides,  the  chief  representative  of  that  school, 
was  that  "being  alone  is,  and  non-being  is  not." 

•  This  doctrine  involves  the  conception  that  everything 
is  all  that  it  can  ever  be.  It  therefore  has  no  potential 
phase,  and  so  can  by  no  possibility  pass  out  of  its  present 
state.  Hence  no  change,  quantitative  or  qualitative,  can 
ever  take  place.  All  seeming  change  is  mere  illusion. 
The  senses  only  deceive  us.  It  is  by  reason,  and  by 
reason  alone,  that  we  can  ever  attain  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  The  senses  tell  us  that  the  things  of  the  world 
change  ;  reason  assures  us  that  no  change  whatever  is 
possible. 

Thus,  in  defense  of  this  doctrine,  Zeno's  dialectic 
comes  to  have  an  exclusively  negative  employment.  Its 
central,  if  not  its  sole,  purpose  is  to  prove  that  the  con- 
ception of  motion  (and  hence  of  change)  is  a  self -contra- 
dictory conception,  and  hence  impossible.  A  thing,  he 
says,  must  move  either  where  it  is  or  where  it  is  not. 
On  the  one  hand,  however,  it  is  impossible  that  it  should 

109 


110  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

move  where  it  is  ;  for  the  moment  it  begins  to  move,  it 
must  in  that  very  fact  leave  the  place  where  it  is.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  can  not  move  where  it  is  not,  since  it  is 
impossible  that  it  should  be  in  more  than  one  place  at 
the  same  time.  Hence  it  is  impossible  that  anything 
should  move ;  or,  in  other  words,  motion  of  any  kind 
whatever  is  impossible. 

It  was  doubtless  a  very  elf ective  sarcasm  on  the  part  of 
Diogenes  when,  on  hearing  this  argument  through,  he 
silently  and  contemptuously  filliped  a  pebble  into  the  brook 
with  his  not  too  tidy  great  toe,  though  it  could  scarcely 
serve  as  a  philosophic  answer  to  the  argument. 

The  fallacy,  in  fact,  lies  in  the  ambiguity  of  the  ex- 
pression, "where  it  is."  In  truth,  the  place  where  any- 
thing is  is  absolutely  indifferent  as  regards  space  in  gen- 
eral; while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  place  where  a  thing  is 
is  no  less  absolutely  inseparable  from  the  thing  itself.  No 
matter,  then,  whether  the  thing  be  moving  or  motion-, 
less,  the  "place-where-it-is"  pertains  absolutely  to  the 
thing  itself,  and  is  indifferently  any  portion  of  space 
whatever. 

Thus,  the  "  place-where-it-is "  is  by  no  means  to  be 
understood  as  an  absolutely  fixed  division  in  or  of 
absolute  space.  On  the  contrary,  space  is  simply  an 
infinite  series  of  indifferent  "places,"  each  of  which  in 
turn  comes  to  be  the  "place-where-it-is"  as  the  thing 
passes  into  it,  and  comes  again  to  be  the  place  where  it 
was  as  the  thing  passes  out  of  it — that  is,  again,  if  such 
"place"  could  possibly  be  defined  apart  from  body. 

It  is  not  true,  then,  that,  in  order  to  move,  the  thing 
must  leave  the  "  place-where-it-is  ; "  for  the  "place-where- 
it-is"  is  not  a  fixed  portion  of  absolute  space,  but  is, 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  Ill 

instead,  precisely  the  abstract  externality  or  volume  per- 
taining to  the  thing  itself,  and  inseparable  therefrom. 
It  can  occupy  only  just  so  much  of  space  as  corresponds 
to  its  volume,  neither  more  nor  less ;  and  thus,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  it  carries  with  it  the  <(  place-where-it-is", 
the  latter  being,  in  short,  nothing  else  than  a  given 
quantity  of  what  Kant  calls  "movable  space. "  It  may 
also  be  said  that  the  whole  of  pure  space  is  the  "here"  of 
every  particular  body,  since  it  is  impossible  to  say  where, 
in  space  as  such,  the  body  is.  It  can,  in  fact,  be  located 
only  with  reference  to  other  bodies.  Apart  from  body, 
then,  "place"  has  no  meaning,  so  that  a  body  cannot 
leave  the  "place-where-it-is",  simply  because  it  cannot 
separate  itself  from  its  own  volume.  On  the  other  hand, 
as  to  the  particular  portion  of  abstract  space  which  the 
body  is  in,  it  is  impossible  for  us  ever  to  know  whether  a 
body  is  moving  or  not,  so  long  as  the  body  is  viewed  apart 
from  other  bodies.  As  will  be  shown  more  fully  below, 
neither  motion  nor  rest  could  ever  be  ascribed  to  an 
isolated  body  in  abstract  space.  Motion  and  rest  are 
terms  that  cannot  be  applied  with  any  meaning  to  a 
body,  save  as  expressing  a  relation  of  that  body  to  some 
other  body. 

Thus  motion  proves  to  be  the  very  first  and  simplest 
phase  of  "becoming"  or  change  in  any  portion  of  the 
extended  world.  That  is,  in  such  "change"  the  object 
is  found  theoretically  to  undergo  change  or  modification 
only  in  a  purely  external  sense ;  for  there  occurs  no  real 
change  in  the  object,  but  only  a  change  in  the  purely 
external  relations  which  the  given  object  sustains  to 
other  objects. 


112  THE   WOKLD-ENEEGY 

It  may  be,  indeed,  that  even  such  external  change 
necessarily  involves  internal  change  also,  though  that  is 
not  immediately  apparent.  Nevertheless,  as  was  already 
seen  at  an  earlier  stage  of  the  argument,  any  change  in 
the  relative  position  of  any  given  force-center  must  in- 
volve a  change  in  the  strains  to  which  it  is  subjected,  and 
hence  must  develop  greater  or  less  modification  within 
the  force-center  itself;  and  not  only  so,  but  it  would 
seem  that  the  continuity  of  substance  must  render  such 
interrelation  inevitable  in  every  sphere  of  existence.  Of 
this  we  will  see  more  as  we  proceed. 

Another  form  of  Zeno's  argument  is  as  follows:  Grant- 
ing that  motion  is  possible,  an  arrow,  for  example,  can 
never  actually  pass  through  any  assigned  space.  For 
since  space  is  infinitely  divisible,  there  will  be  an  infinite 
number  of  divisions  or  spaces  between  the  point  of  be- 
ginning and  the  assigned  terminus  of  its  flight.  At  the 
same  time,  it  must  occupy  a  definite  portion  of  time  in 
passing  through  each  of  these  spaces.  But,  as  there  is 
an  infinite  number  of  spaces  to  be  passed  over,  the  arrow 
will  necessarily  occupy  in  its  flight  an  infinite  number  of 
moments  or  divisions  of  time.  That  is,  an  infinite  time 
will  be  required  for  the  arrow  to  reach  its  terminus. 
Therefore  no  assigned  space  can  be  traversed  by  any 
object  in  any  finite  time. 

It  is  as  if  all  velocities  were  subdivided  into  what  the 
acute  eye  of  modern  science  has  been  able  to  recognize  as 
"infinitely  small"  velocities,  which  in  truth  is  but  a 
calm  adoption,  with  or  without  recognition,  of  the  dread- 
fully metaphysical  conception  of  the  infinite  divisibility 
of  both  time  and  space  ;  f or  "  velocity"  is  just  the  product 
of  space  and  time. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  113 

Here,  indeed,  the  fallacy  is  not  so  very  deeply  hidden 
as  has  been  sometimes  supposed.  Space  is  assumed  to 
be  infinitely  divisible.  Then  a  finite  space  is  assumed  to 
be  actually  divided  to  infinity.  Then  one  of  these  "  in- 
finitely small "  divisions  is  assumed  to  have  absolutely  no 
dimensions  at  all.  That  is,  an  "  infinitely  small "  portion 
or  extent  of  space  is  assumed  to  be  identical  with  the 
point  which,  so  far  from  being  a  space,  even  an  "infi- 
nitely small "  space,  is  just  the  absolute  negation  of  space. 

On  the  contrary,  no  matter  how  far  the  division  of 
space  may  be  considered  to  have  been  carried,  even  though 
it  be  to  "infinity,"  yet  will  the  smallest  actual  division 
still  be  space,  and  will  thus  have  actual  dimensions.  So 
that,  each  extending  over  a  definite  part  of  the  distance, 
there  will  be  but  a  finite  number  of  spaces  to  pass 
through. 

But,  again,  as  Aristotle  did  not  fail  to  observe,  time 
is  infinitely  divisible,  as  well  as  space.  And,  hence,  a 
portion  of  time,  however  small,  may  be  stretched  out  to 
infinity  by  the  same  process,  and  thus  a  fictitious  infinite 
time  produced  to  render  the  passage  of  the  arrow  through 
the  assumed  fictitious  infinity  of  space  reasonably  suc- 
cessful and  prompt. 

Nay,  let  the  same  mode  of  proof  be  applied  to  the 
arrow  itself  (since  matter  is  also  infinitely  divisible),  and 
it  will  be  found  that  the  arrow  consists  of  an  infinite 
number  of  parts,  each  of  which  has  a  certain  extent. 
Whence  the  arrow,  as  a  whole,  has  infinite  dimensions, 
and  thus  offers  a  solid  bridge  whereon  one  may  safely  pass 
from  the  earth  to  the  remotest  star  in  space  I  For  thus, 
evidently,  the  arrow  itself  is  already  the  star  and  the 
earth,  and  all  things  else  extended.  Hence,  too,  it  is 


114  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

already  at  the  point  of  destination  without  even  leaving 
the  point  of  departure. 

But  one  fallacy  is  not  explained,  still  less  explained 
away,,  by  putting  another  by  its  side.  A  really  valid 
answer  to  the  one  here  under  consideration  is  found  in 
the  contradiction  involved  in  the  expression,  "infinite 
number." 

Doubtless  there  may  be,  and  is,  a  reality  corresponding 
with  the  expression,  infinite  quantity ;  and  mathematics 
is  commonly  defined  as  the  "science  of  quantity."  Nev- 
ertheless, as  we  have  seen,  mathematics  deals,  and  from 
its  nature  can  only  deal  successfully,  with  the  finite 
aspects  of  quantity.  To  quantify  in  the  mathematical 
sense  means  to  find  a  definite  measure.  And  whenever 
a  "mathematically  exact  "result  is  reached,  that  result 
is  represented  by  some  definite  number.  But  number,  as 
a  given  definite  number,  is  and  can  only  be  finite. '  Any 
given  number  may  be  added  to,  or  may  be  multiplied 
either  by  itself  or  by  any  other  number.  Hence  the  ex- 
pression, an  "  infinite  number."  has  really  no  meaning  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  The  infinite  is  beyond  all 
number,  and  no  given  number  can  ever  represent  the 
infinite.  So  that  the  phrase,  "infinite  number,"  is  an 
"expression,"  indeed,  but  an  expression  of  nothing  more 
than  the  vague  conception  of  a  quantity  very  great,  but 
as  yet  undefined ;  unmeasured,  but  by  no  means  absolutely 


In  short,  the  Zenonian  fallacy  can  possess  even  the 
color  of  truth  only  so  long  as  one  fails  to  recognize  the 
essential  relationship  between  the  continuous  and  the  dis- 
crete aspects  of  quantity — the  true  relation  of  the  meas- 
urable to  the  measureless. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  115 

A  valid  reason  is  found,  as  I  think,  for  the  attention 
here  given  to  the  fallacies  of  the  Zenonian  dialectic,  in 
the  re-appearance  of  those  fallacies  under  varying  forms 
in  modern  science.  In  this  connection  it  will  suffice  to 
mention  the  mathematical  theory  of  "variables  and  lim- 
its"; in  which  it  is  supposed  to  be  shown,  for  example, 
how  a  polygon  may  actually  become  a  circle;*  and,  as  a 
typical  case  in  physical  science,  that  of  work  done  by  0 
weight  with  a  lever  of  infinite  length.  Mathematics 
struggles  courageously  toward  the  infinite,  and  produces 
magnificent  results — within  its  appropriate  domain  of 
the  finite. 

In  contrast  with  the  Eleatic  doctrine  that  "Being 
alone  is  and  non-being  is  not,"  Heraclitus  declared  that 
"Being  no  more  is  than  non-being."  In  the  former  the 
conception  of  "being"  is  equivalent  to  that  of  absolute 
reality,  while  by  "non-being"  is  evidently  meant  the 
absolutely  unreal;  that  is,  mere  nothing.  In  the  latter  or 
Heraclitean  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  the  term  "being" 
evidently  represents  the  present  state  in  which  any  given 
phase  of  reality  is,  while  the  term  "non-being"  stands 
for  any  state  that  a  given  phase  of  reality  may  assume 
other  than  that  which  it  now  is  in.  That  is,  Heraclitus 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  see  clearly  that  nothing  in 
the  finite  world  is  ever  at  any  one  moment  all  that  it  is 
possible  it  should  be — the  first  to  see  at  all  clearly  the 
true  distinction  between  the  real  and  the  potential.  Thus, 
according  to  his  doctrine,  any  individual  object  has  being 
at  any  given  moment  in  just  so  far  as  its  potentialities 

*In  some  mathematical  works  it  is,  indeed,  explicitly  stated  that  the 
"limit"  can  never  be  actually  reached;  though  the  conception  of  a  number 
"  becoming  infinite  "  seems  to  present  no  difficulties. 


116  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

are  realized  in  that  moment.  On  the  other  hand, 
whatever  of  its  potentialities  are  unrealized  at  any 
given  moment,  such  potentialities  constitute  its  non- 
being. 

But  these  unrealized  phases  of  potentiality  belonging 
to  an  object  and  constituting  its  non-being  are  no  less 
constituent  factors  in  the  total  significance  of  the  object 
than  are  the  phases  which  are  for  the  moment  realized, 
and  which  thus  constitute  its  being.  The  being  of  an 
object  may  cease  as  being  and  come  to  be  as  non-being; 
but  it  can  do  so  only  on  condition  that  some  phase  or 
phases  of  its  non-being  shall  cease  as  non-being,  and  thus 
come  into  the  state  of  being.  Thus  his  somewhat  enig- 
matical saying  that  being  no  more  is  than  non-being  is 
seen  to  be  entirely  justified.  It  is  an  explicit  announce- 
ment of  the  condition  necessary  to  any  and  every  change 
or  becoming.  Whence  his  doctrine  is  called  the  doctrine 
of  Becoming,  emphasizing  as  it  does  (in  opposition  to  the 
changelessness  of  Being  as  affirmed  by  the  Eleatics)  the 
evident  fact  that  all  things  are  in  a  ceaseless  process — 
that  all  things  perpetually  flow  or  become. 

It  seems  probable,  too,  that  we  have  here  the  clue  to  the 
peculiar  form  which  Aristotle  gave  to  that  law,  which  he 
regarded  as  the  fundamental  law  of  all  true  thinking. 
As  has  already  been  stated  (in  the  introductory  chapter) 
the  "law  of  contradiction"  as  formulated  by  him  declares 
that  "a  thing  cannot  both  begin  and  not  begin  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  sense."  It  is  as  if  Aristotle 
wished  to  emphasize  in  his  formulation  of  this  central 
conception  of  all  real  science  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
of  Becoming,  and  the  necessity  of  its  recognition  in  all 
rational  inquiry. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  117 

And  that  this  is  by  no  means  a  strained  interpretation 
is  shown  in  a  remarkable  passage  of  the  "Metaphysics," 
(Lib.  XL  [XII. ]  cap.  II).  The  entire  book  is  devoted  to 
a  discussion  of  substance.  In  the  second  chapter  change 
is  especially  considered  as  pertaining  to  that  phase  of  sub- 
stance perceptible  to  the  senses.  In  the  preceding  chap- 
ter he  has  remarked  that  in  this  phase  of  substance  there 
is  an  eternal  element  or  factor.  Here  he  indicates  that 
this  permanent  factor  in  the  midst  of  the  changing  is  to 
be  called  matter  (obj).  Directly  after  is  found  the  pas- 
sage to  which  reference  is  made  above,  and  which  is  as 
follows:  "If  there  were  four  modes  of  change — one  as 
to  type  (TO  ri),  one  as  to  quality  (TO  notov),  one  as  to 
quantity  (ij  noffov),  one  as  to  place  (ij  TT«D);  and  if  sim- 
ple integration  (yfrsffis)  and1  disintegration  (QOopa)  [were 
to  take  place]  according  to  the  first  of  these  modes,  in- 
crease and  diminution  according  to  that  of  quantity, 
change,  [in  quality]  according  to  passivity,  and  motion 
according  to  place;  then  in  every  case  change  would  be 
a  contradiction."  Thus  far,  as  if  with  reference  to  the 
Zenonian  arguments  in  disproof  of  the  possibility  of 
change.  But  he  adds  immediately  a  statement  that 
seems  to  refer  distinctly  to  the  Heraclitean  doctrine  of 
Becoming  as  the  essentially  true  one  in  respect  of  change. 
The  statement  is  this:  "Whence,  of  necessity,  all  possi- 
ble change  in  matter  is  two-fold  [or  of  reciprocal  nature] . 
But,  since  being  is  two-fold,  everything  changes  from 
potential  being  (duvdpst  OVTOS)  into  real  being  (ivsp^sia  6v); 
as,  for  example,  from  light  potential  to  light  real.  Simi- 
larly with  increase  and  diminution.  Whence  it  is  by  no 
means  accidental  that  all  things  are  developed  recipro- 


118  THE   WOELD-ENEEGY 

cally  from  non-being  and  from  being"  (£*  py  ovros,  d>Ua 

xa}  ££  ovro-). 

Thus  Aristotle  interprets  into  clearness  what  remained 
a  somewhat  obscure  theory  with  Heraclitus,  namely,  that 
non-being  is  as  the  reciprocal  of  being,  and  that,  as  poten- 
tiality, non-being  may  be  of  any  degree  whatever — the 
greater  the  degree  of  reality  in  any  given  case  the  less  the 
degree  of  potentiality;  the  less  the  degree  of  reality  the 
greater  the  degree  of  potentiality.  When  the  rose-bud  is 
real,  the  rose  is  the  next  natural  phase  of  potentiality. 
When  the  rose  is  the  real,  the  next  phase  of  potentiality  is 
decay,  etc.  And  the  actual  rose  is  the  total  round  of  pos- 
sibilities of  the  rose,  both  the  realized  and  the  unrealized. 
That  is,  the  actual  total  world  is  the  entire  range  of  both 
reality  and  potentiality,  of  being  and  of  non-being;  and 
every  object  of  the  world  appealing  to  the  senses,  is  in 
constant  process  or  rather  it  is  itself  a  constant  process 
with  both  beginning  and  ceasing,  with  both  being  and 
non-being,  as  the  necessary  reciprocal  factors  of  its  pro- 
tean existence. 

Thus  motion  is  inevitable.  It  is  not  so  difficult  to 
conceive  its  existence  as  to  conceive  its  non-existence. 

To  this  it  need  hardly  be  added  that  Hegel  takes,  as 
the  starting-point  of  his  famous  (though,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  little  known)  dialectical  development  of  the  cate- 
gories of  thought  (and  of  reality)  this  same  doctrine  of 
Heraclitus  concerning  the  relation  which  being  and  non- 
being  sustain  to  each  other  in  becoming,  though  of  course 
with  a  subtle  refinement  upon  these  concepts  as  they  were 
left  by  Heraclitus. 

It  appears,  then,  that  motion,  activity,  /becoming,  has 
long  been  considered  as  constituting  the  vital  truth  of  the 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  119 

world.  And  modern  science  is  but  tracing  out  in  more 
precise  details  what  the  greatest  "  metaphysical  "  thinkers 
of  preceding  ages  have  shown,  each  in  his  own  way,  to  be 
the  one  truly  rational  theory  of  the  world.  What  is,  per- 
haps, wanting  more  than  anything  else  in  the  work  of 
modern  science,  is  the  clear  guidance  of  the  universal 
principles  which  these  great  thinkers  have  outlined  with 
such  admirable  consistency,  and  which  modern  investiga- 
tors themselves  are  seeking  after,  through  their  so-called 
inductive  methods.  In  reality,  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  all  science  are  discovered  rather  by  reflection  than 
by  pursuit  of  details.  And  what  are  called  discoveries  are 
commonly  nothing  else  than  the  outward,  conspicuous 
verification  of  the  accuracy  with  which  the  inward  incon- 
spicuous process  of  thought  has  traced  out  this  or  that 
fundamental  principle  in  nature.  Thought  anticipates 
experiment.  Experiment  is  the  process  of  measuring 
one's  thought  by  applying  it  to  the  unvarying  standard  of 
nature. 

Doubtless  thought,  to  be  successful,  to  be  real  as 
thought,  must  in  a  certain  sense  be  experimental,  must 
keep  in  view  the  "  facts  "  of  nature,  though,  again,  these 
"  facts  "  could  only  be  known  as  such  by  means  of  thought. 
Similarly,  on  the  other  hand,  no  experiment  or  observa- 
tion is  worthy  the  name  unless  thought  is  present  as  the 
very  soul  of  the  process  so  named.  As  we  saw  at  the  out- 
set of  our  inquiry,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  theory  and 
fact  are  separable  elements  in  human  inquiry.  No  theory 
is  trustworthy  that  did  not  more  or  less  have  its  origin  in 
"  experiment,"  and  that  does  not  constantly  find  its  con- 
firmation in  experiment.  But,  equally  true  is  it  that  no 
"experiment"  is  of  any  real  significance  unless  it  has 


120  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

begun  in  thought,  and  is  continuously  guided  "by  thought. 
And,  after  all,  the  supreme  "experiment"  is  that  which 
thought  performs  upon  itself,  clarifying  itself  by  self- 
criticism,  and  thus  making  sure  of  its  own  consistency,  of 
its  own  harmony  with  the  supreme  law  of  thought — which 
law,  let  it  be  ever  remembered,  is  also  the  central  law  of 
all  reality.  This  is  the  value  of  the  universal  logic 
which,  as  Kant  expresses  it,  is  a  "cathartic  of  the  ordi- 
nary understanding." 

To  resume,  then,  Heraclitus  is  seen  to  have  solved  the 
contradiction  inherent  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Eleatic  con- 
ception of  the  world,  by  the  discovery,  substantially,  that 
quantity  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  either  continuous  or 
discrete;  but  that,  rather,  quantity  is  necessarily  both 
continuous  and  discrete — that  the  discrete  or  measurable 
is  itself  a  necessary  phase  of  the  continuous,  or  measure- 
less. And  this  discovery  is  also  found  to  be  distinctly 
recognized  as  the  discovery  of  the  central  truth  of  at  least 
all  extended  reality,  by  both  Aristotle  and  Hegel.  So 
that,  with  them,  motion,  activity,  becoming,  constitutes 
the  central,  vital  truth  of  the  world. 

And  what  is  this  but  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  large 
outline?  Here,  too,  "all  flows."  There  is  no  rest  in  the 
sense  of  mere  quiescence.  Perpetual  activity,  perpetual 
motion,  characterizes  the  sum  of  all  reality. 

At  the  same  time,  it  seems  well  worth  noticing,  that 
the  first  rigidly  reasoned  and,  at  least  approximately, 
consistent  development  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
in  modern  thought,  assumed  a  metaphysical  character. 
And  this  we  owe  to  Spinoza,  who  presents  the  doctrine 
under  the  form  of  a  demonstration  of  the  necessary 
relation  existing  between  substance  and  its  modes — 


AKD   ITS   SELF-COKSERVATIOtf.  121 

between   the    continuous    and    the    discrete   aspects   of 
existence. 

Having  thus  shown  not  only  that  motion  is  possible, 
but  also  that  it  is  inevitable,  in  all  extended  objects,  we 
have  next  to  trace  the  fundamental  characteristics  of 
motion. 


CHAPTER  XL 

OF   THE    NATUBE    OF    MOTION. 

WE  have  seen  that  the  question  of  the  possibility  of 
•motion  engaged  the  attention  of  thinkers  at  a  very 
early  period.  We  also  found  that  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  conceiving  the  possibility  of  motion  are  due  to  a 
misconception  of  the  relation  between  the  extensive  and 
the  intensive  aspects  of  quantity,  together  with  entangle- 
ment in  the  fallacy  that  the  " infinitely  small"  is  abso- 
lutely without  dimensions. 

Thus  it  requires  no  very  extended  research  to  enable 
us  to  set  aside  the  arguments  of  Zeno  as  having  no  real 
force  or  validity.  But  we  shall  find  another  contradic- 
tion in  the  conception  of  motion,  considered  from  the 
modern  standpoint,  which,  at  least  within  the  limits  of 
inquiry  allowed  by  anti-metaphysical  investigators,  is  far 
more  difficult  to  solve  than  those  presented  by  Zeno.  This 
difficulty  will  develop  of  itself  as  we  proceed. 

Let  us  note  now  that  space  presents  no  obstacle  to  mo- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  primary  condition  of  motion. 
It  is,  besides,  a  veritable  abstraction.  It  is,  and  yet  is — 
just  nothing.  It  possesses  not  a  single  positive  character- 
istic, and  has  therefore  no  negative  limitations  or  distinc- 
tions by  which  one  part  of  space  can  be  distinguished 
from  any  other  part  of  space. 

So  far  as  space  itself  is  concerned,  then,  neither  Zeno 
nor  anyone  else  could  by  any  possibility  ever  tell  from  the 

122 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  123 

closest  scrutiny  of  a  given  body,  in  its  relation  to  space 
merely,  whether  such  body  were  moving  or  motionless. 
Granted  that  space  could  be  emptied  of  all  objects  with 
the  exception  of  one  single  body,  that  body  could  not  be 
said  either  to  be  at  rest  or  to  be  in  motion.  For,  space 
being  "infinite,"  in  the  double  sense  that  it  is  without  lim- 
itation both  externally  and  internally,  there  could  be  no 
possible  fixed  point  in  space  as  such  with  reference  to 
which  the  body  could  be  said  to  be  either  stationary  or 
moving. 

On  the  supposition,  however,  that  two  definite  bodies 
are  in  existence,  it  is  evidently  possible  to  recognize 
whether  the  distance  between  the  two  remains  the  same, 
or  increases,  or  diminishes.  And  with  the  aid  of  the 
spectroscope  this  would  be  possible,  even  though  the  ob- 
servations were  taken  from  one  of  the  given  bodies, 
though,  of  course,  on  condition  that  the  other  body 
should  be  incandescent. 

But,  again,  in  such  case  it  would  be  impossible  to 
judge  whether  the  system  composed  by  the  two  bodies 
were  moving  or  not,  for  the  same  reason  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  judge  whether  the  single  body  in  the  former 
case  were  moving  or  at  rest.  Nor  would  it  be  possible  to 
tell  whether  the  one,  or  the  other,  or  both  the  bodies 
composing  the  system  were  moving,  in  case  the  distance 
between  them  were  ascertained  to  be  increasing  or  dimin- 
ishing. And,  again,  the  two  bodies  might  be  revolving 
about  each  other  with  any  velocity,  and  the  fact  must  re- 
main forever  unknown  to  an  observer  from  either  body, 
supposing  an  axial  rotation  in  each  exactly  corresponding 
with  the  motion  of  their  revolution  about  each  other. 
Or,  supposing  an  axial  rotation  in  the  body  from  which 


124  THE   WOKLD-EKERGY 

observations  are  taken,  and  not  corresponding  with  any 
given  movement  which  the  bodies  might  have  about  one 
another,  the  observer  could  never  detect  the  axial  rotation 
in  his  own  sphere.  On  the  contrary,  he  must  inevitably 
attribute  to  the  observed  body  a  movement  about  his  own 
sphere,  even  though  the  bodies  were  at  rest  with  reference 
to  each  other.  While,  in  case  an  actual  revolution  exr 
isted,  it  could  in  no  way  be  detected,  and  the  apparent 
motion  might  be  exactly  opposite  to  the  actual  one.  The 
former  case  is  sufficiently  illustrated  by  the  apparent  revo- 
lution of  the  sun  around  the  earth;  the  latter  by  the 
apparent  'motion  of  the  moon  contrary  to  its  actual 
motion  about  our  planet — discrepancies  which  could  never 
have  been  discovered  save  through  observation  of  the 
motion  of  many  bodies. 

Finally,  what  has  been  said  of  the  relativity  of  motion 
must  be  true  in  any  system  composed  of  any  number  of 
bodies.  Any  motion  of  the  system  as  a  whole  could 
never  be  detected,  save  in  comparison  with  some  body,  or 
group  of  bodies,  outside  the  system.  That  is,  no  positive 
judgment  could  ever  be  formed  of  any  state  of  motion  or  ' 
rest  respecting  the  bodies  composing  the  system,  save 
with  reference  to  one  another. 

Thus,  we  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  say,  we 
know  absolutely  that  all  our  knowledge  of  the  mo- 
tions of  bodies  must  be  relative — though  the  special 
discussions  of  those  motions  constitute  several  of  the 
most  important  of  the  " exact  sciences"  which,  as  such, 
ought,  it  would  seem,  to  lead  us  to  absolute  knowl- 
edge of  some  sort.  Perhaps,  after  all,  it  will  yet  be 
discovered  that  these  are  the  absolute  sciences  of  the 
relative. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION".  125 

A  striking  example  of  the  absolute  relativity  of  our 
knowledge  of  motion  is  given  in  Clerk  MaxwelFs  admira- 
ble little  treatise  on  " Matter  and  Motion"  (p.  36).  He 
says:  "  If,  when  referred  to  a  certain  point,  the  body  ap- 
pears to  be  moving  northward  with  diminishing  velocity, 
we  have  only  to  refer  it  to  another  point  moving  north- 
ward with  a  uniform  velocity  greater  than  that  of  the 
body,  and  it  will  appear  to  be  moving  southward  with 
increasing  velocity." 

We  may,  in  short,  heartily  agree  with  the  same  author 
when  he  declares  it  to  be  "unscientific  to  distinguish 
between  rest  and  motion,  as  between  two  different  states 
of  a  body  in  itself,  since  it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  a 
body  being  at  rest  or  in  motion,  except  with  reference, 
expressed  or  implied,  to  some  other  body." 

It  is  assuredly  "unscientific,"  not  to  say  unphilo- 
sophic,  to  attempt  to  set  up  a  distinction  in  thought 
where  it  is  "impossible,"  even  absolutely  impossible,  to 
discover  any  distinction  in  fact. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  there  is  a  possible  contra- 
diction involved  in  the  conception  that  all  our  knowledge 
of  motion  is  relative  in  its  nature.  It  would  seem  that, 
so  far  as  we  have  knowledge  at  all,  such  knowledge 
must  belong  to  us  as  a  phase  of  our  own  consciousness.  So 
much,  at  least,  we  may  fairly  be  allowed  to  know  abso- 
lutely. And  further,  we  know,  by  an  application  of  the 
law  of  contradiction  —  which,  we  have  seen,  is  also  to 
be  regarded  as  one  phase  of  the  larger  law  of  con- 
sistency —  that  the  only  space  we  can  truly  think ;  that 
is,  the  only  space  we  can  ever  know,  in  any  rational 
sense  of  the  term  —  is,  in  its  very  nature,  absolutely 
unlimited.  We  know  absolutely,  also,  that,  as  there  are 


126  THE    WOKLD-ENEKGY 

no  distinguishing  points  whatever  in  space,  considered 
merely  as  space,  it  is  wholly  "unscientific  to  distinguish 
between  rest  and  motion  as  between  two  different 
states  of  a  body  in  itself."  And  still  further;  we  know 
absolutely  that  if  the  actual  distance  between  two  bodies 
increases  or  diminishes,  one  or  other,  or  both  the  bodies, 
must  move.  By  the  law  of  consistency,  thought  must 
accept  this  as  true  and  must  utterly  repudiate  any 
asserting  by  which  it  is  contradicted. 

Motion,  therefore,  is  primarily  a  change  in  the  space- 
relations  of  two  or  more  bodies.  And  this,  too,  we  may 
fairly  claim  to  know  absolutely. 

But  now  another  phase  of  the  subject  presents  itself. 
We  have  just  seen  that  all  our  knowledge  of  motion  is 
a  knowledge  of  change  in  space-relations  between 
actual  bodies.  But  change  of  any  kind  can  only  take 
place  in  time.  Whence  it  appears  that  our  knowledge 
of  motion  is  a  complex  knowledge,  involving  the  rela- 
tions both  of  time  and  of  space.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  though  our  knowledge 
of  motion  is,  in  its  nature,  a  knowledge  of  relations,  it 
by  no  means  necessarily  follows  from  this  that  all  we 
can  know  of  motion  is  to  be  counted  as  merely  relative 
knowledge. 

It  seems  well  worth  while  to  notice,  by  the  way,  too, 
that  the  ambiguity  just  noticed  is  precisely  that  which 
underlies  the  whole  theory  of  the  relativity  of  knowl- 
edge—  the  advocates  of  which  seem  to  find  not  the 
slightest  difficulty  in  knowing  with  absolute  certainty 
that  absolutely  nothing  can  ever  be  certainly  known. 
Nor  are  they  likely  to  become  aware  of  such  difficulty 


AND    ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION.  127 

until  they  have  learned  to  distinguish  between  knowl- 
edge of  relations  and  relative  knowledge. 

It  is  relations,  indeed,  that  constitute  the  marrow, 
the  essence,  all  that  has  substance  and  vitality  in  our 
knowledge  ;  for  relations  constitute  the  core  of  all 
reality.  It  is  for  this  reason,  and  not  because  of  the 
hopeless  limitations  of  our  powers  of  knowing,  that  we 
can  learn  so  little  concerning  space.  For  space  is 
utterly  destitute  of  relation  within  itself.  It  has,  as 
already  noticed,  no  qualitative  differences  by  which  one 
portion  of  space  can  be  distinguished  from  another. 
This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  "unscientific"  to  speak  of 
motion  or  of  rest  as  pertaining  to  an  isolated  body  in 
space.  Thus,  as  being  without  inner  or  qualitative 
relations,  space  is  barren  of  reality.  Hence,  not  a  single 
positive  proposition  can  be  made  concerning  it.  Space 
has  no  secret  save  an  infinitely  wide  open  one.  It  has  and 
can  have  no  relation  to  bodies  beyond  the  purely  neg- 
ative one  of  absolute  non-resistance  to  their  movements. 
Hence  there  is  neither  fixed  nor  fixable  position  or 
direction  in  space  apart  from  bodies  in  space.  Position 
and  direction  could,  in  fact,  have  no  possible  meaning 
apart  from  bodies. 

In  short,  space  is  only  as  a  relation  between  bodies ; 
though  still  only  the  purely  negative  relation  of  mere 
separation. 

Our  interest  in  (f  absolute  space, "  then,  can  only  be 
our  interest  in  the  emptiest,  the  most  "absolute"  of  all 
abstractions ;  our  interest  in  boundless  nothing. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  our 
interest  in  motion  is  an  interest  in  the  changes  of  relation 
of  bodies  to  each  other  in  space.  The  only  directions 


128  THE   WOELD-ENEEGY 

that  can  come  within  the  possible  range  of  our  knowing 
are  those  determined  hy  the  relations  of  bodies  to  each 
other. 

Such  relations  are  fixed  or  absolute  in  the  sense  that 
they  are  inseparable  from  the  bodies.  If  the  bodies  exist 
the  relations  also  exist  necessarily  or  "  absolutely."  Thus 
in  every  case  of  the  relation  of  body  to  body  in  space  com- 
ing under  our  observation  we  have  an  example  of  abso- 
lute knowledge,  though  it  is  also  a  knowledge  of  rela- 
tions. 

But  again,  when  the  relations  between  the  parts  of 
a  physically  constituted  system  are  considered,  such 
relations  will  be  found  to  undergo  change.  It  is  here, 
indeed,  that  we  find  the  appropriate  realm  of  measure 
and  of  relativity  in  estimate  of  values.  A  change  of 
distance,  or  of  velocity,  or  of  direction,  is  equal,  or  greater, 
or  less,  in  comparison  with  some  other  change  of  dis- 
tance, or  of  velocity,  or  of  direction.  And  these  changes 
are  represented  in  empirical  space  ;  that  is,  in  a  space 
rendered  significant  by  the  presence  of  objects. 

But  also,  with  such  changes  of  relation,  there  is 
introduced  the  element  of  possible  confusion.  A  given 
body,  A,  considered  with  reference  to  a  given  other  body, 
By  will  appear  to  be  moving  in  one  direction  ;  while,  in 
comparison  with  a  third  body,  C,  it  will  appear  to  be 
moving  in  a  contrary  direction.  Thus  motion  appears 
to  contain  its  own  dialectic,  through  which  it  exhibits 
its  own  absolute  relativity.  For  example,  suppose  any 
three  bodies,  a,  b  and  c,  to  be  moving  in  the  same 
direction  along  the  same  straight  line,  c  being  first 
and  a  last.  If  c  has  the  greatest  velocity  and  b 
the  least,  then  b  will  appear  to  be  moving  away  from  c 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEBVATION.  129 

toward  a ;  and  a  will  appear  to  be  moving  away  from  c, 
but  also  toward  ~b.  That  is,  b  will  have  the  appearance 
of  moving  in  the  opposite  direction  from  that  of  its 
real  velocity,  while  a  will  be  moving  in  one  direction 
with  reference  to  c,  and  at  the  same  time  in  the  oppo- 
site direction  with  reference  to  Z>. 

Again,  both  a  and  c  may  be  revolving  about  ~b  with 
any  velocity,  and,  so  long  as  their  directions  from  one 
another  remain  unchanged,  this  revolution  could  never 
be  detected  save  with  reference  to  some  body  outside 
the  system  (as  we  saw  before  in  case  of  a  system  of 
two  bodies). 

Once  more,  suppose  an  ' '  infinite  "  sphere,  of  uniform 
density,  to  occupy  an  otherwise  empty  space ;  the  sphere 
might  be  revolving  on  its  axis  in  any  given  direction 
and  with  any  velocity,  while  yet  the  fact  of  its  revolu- 
tion, and  still  more  the  velocity  of  its  revolution,  must 
be  absolutely  undiscernible.  And  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
its  revolution  must  constantly  involve  motion  in  an 
infinitude  of  opposite  directions.  That  is,  every  point 
not  in  the  axis  of  motion  must  move  in  a  direction 
precisely  opposite  to  that  in  which  the  corresponding 
point  on  the  other  side  of  the  axis  moves. 

Nay,  the  revolution  of  such  sphere  must  also  involve 
all  possible  velocities,  from  the  "  infinitely  small," 
at  the  axis,  to  the  "  infinitely  great/'  at  the  infinitely 
removed  "  circumference." 

Finally,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  ' '  infinite  sphere  " 
without  differentiation  of  any  kind,  is  but  a  material- 
ized image  of  space  itself,  whose  content  is  nothing 
but  the  abstract  and  purely  negative  possibility  of  all 
motion. 


130  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

Evidently,  then,  all  motion  is  relative,  though  our 
knowledge  of  such  motion  is  in  many  respects  absolute. 
Among  other  things,  we  know,  with  absolute  certainty, 
that  the  expression,  "  absolute  motion,"  is  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms  ;  or,  in  other  words,  we  know  absolutely 
that  no  motion  of  a  body  can  be  really  conceived  save 
as  relative  to  some  other  body. 

What  further  is  to  be  known  of  motion  in  its  gen- 
eral character  has  long  since  been  formulated  with  at 
least  apparent  "  exactness,"  or,  in  other  words,  with 
absolute  precision.  Our  next  task,  then,  will  be  to 
examine  these  formulas. 


CHAPTEE  XII. 

THE   LAWS   OF   MOTION.* 

IT  has  been  seen  that  a  single,  isolated  body  in  space 
could  not  be  said  to  be  either  at  rest  or  in  motion. 
Motion  can  only  be  of  one  body  with  reference  to 
another  body.  It  is,  to  repeat,  a  change  of  relation 
between  bodies  in  space,  and  can  no  more  be  said  to 
belong  to  the  one  than  to  the  other.  It  is  simply  an 
approach  or  a  recession  —  an  increase  or  a  diminution 
of  the  distance  between  them — and  is  thus  essentially 
mutual. 

But  since  motion  can  only  take  place  on  the  part  of 
bodies  with  reference  to  each  other,  it  must  be  occa- 
sioned by  some  fundamental  connection  between  the 
bodies  themselves  ;  and  this  connection,  or  concrete  re- 
lation, we  have  already  seen  developed  in  the  discussion 
of  the  fundamental  nature  of  matter,  or  the  extended, 
of  which  " bodies"  are  but  the  local  aggregations. 

Force  or  energy  being  the  substance  of  the  extended 
world,  its  modes  of  manifestation,  or  phases  of  dif- 
ferentiation, give  rise  to  infinitely  multiple  relations  of 
force,  some  of  which,  in  turn,  appear  under  the  form 
of  " bodies"  in  space.  And  these  bodies,  thus  consti- 
tuted, must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  fundamentally 
related,  each  to  every  other. 

Each  body  is,  in  fact,  itself  a  force-center,  involv- 
ing necessarily  both  phases  of  force  —  attraction  and 

131 


132  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

repulsion.  And  this  not  merely  within  itself,  but  also  with 
reference  to  all  other  bodies.  For,  as  has  already  been 
shown,  even  an  atom  is  a  force-center,  which  is  also  a 
force-sphere,  extending  infinitely  and  laying  hold  on  each 
and  all  other  such  spheres. 

The  relation  of  distance  between  any  two  bodies  will 
therefore  depend  upon  the  deeper  relation  expressed  in 
the  algebraic  sum  of  the  centripetal  and  the  centrifugal 
forces  constituting  the  complex  relation  of  the  bodies  to 
one  another,  and  which  must  determine  whether  they 
shall  approach  each  other  or  become  more  widely  sepa- 
rated from  one  another. 

Thus  every  actual  change  of  relation  in  space  between 
any  two  bodies  is  seen  to  be  necessarily  nothing  else  than 
a  manifestation  of  force.  And  since  the  motion  can  only 
be  a  change  of  relation  in  distance,  or  direction,  or  both, 
as  between  two  or  more  bodies,  such  change  resulting 
from,  or  rather  being  itself  a  manifestation  of,  the  pre- 
dominance, either  of  attraction  or  of  repulsion,  between 
them,  it  is  evident  that  motion  cannot  be  conceived  as 
taking  place  save  in  a  multiple  world  of  objects. 

It  is  further  evident  that  no  single  body  possesses 
within  itself  alone  the  power  to  put  itself  in  motion,  as  a 
whole,  in  any  direction  whatever.  And  this  implies  also 
that,  once  put  in  motion,  it  can  never,  of  itself,  change 
either  the  direction  or  the  rate  of  its  motion. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  impulse  toward  motion  or 
hindrance  from  motion  must  come  from  without.  And 
yet,  not  wholly  from  without,  since  the  force-relation  is 
ever  essentially  a  mutual  one. 

Here,  indeed,  we  have  an  intimation  of  the  primary 
condition  of  all  actual  motion.  We  shall  see,  too,  that 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  133 

a  careful  consideration  of  the  accepted  "laws  of  motion" 
will  lead  us  toward  the  full  development  of  that  condition 
and  of  its  central  significance. 

FIRST    LAW    OF    MOTION. 

This  law  was  formulated  by  Newton  as  follows: 
"  Every  body  continues  in  its  state  of  rest  or  of  uniform 
motion  in  a  straight  line,  except  in  so  far  as  it  may  be 
compelled  by  impressed  forces  to  change  that  state."  * 

We  have,  indeed,  already  developed  the  complete  jus- 
tification of  this  law  which  is  absolutely  universal  since 
it  is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  the  extended  world.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  be  classed  under  the  category  of  * '  rela- 
tive knowledge,"  though  it  affirms  that  without  external 
relations  any  and  every  single  body  is  absolutely  helpless 
and  inane. 

But  the  law,  in  affirming  the  absolute  incapacity  of  an 
isolated  body  either  to  move  itself,  or  in  any  way  to 
change  the  direction  or  quantity  of  motion  which  may 
have  been  imparted  to  it,  expresses  a  most  significant 
limitation  of  extended  objects.  The  law  does  not  affirm 
a  positive  characteristic  of  the  external  world,  but  a 
wholly  negative  one.  It  does  not  declare  what  material 
objects  possess.  On  the  contrary  it  declares  unquestion- 
ably what  they  do  not  possess,  and  that  is  the  power  of 
self-movement.  Every  body,  every  object  in  the  material 
universe,  moves,  or  changes  the  direction  or  velocity  of 
its  motion  only  from  external  causes.  Such  body  can  act 
only  in  so  far  as  it  is  acted  upon. 

This  law  is  then  very  appropriately  styled  the  law  of 
Inertia,  which  is  in  truth  nothing  else  than  the  law  of 

*  This,  with  the  statement  of  the  second  and  third  laws,  given  below,  is 
the  rendering  of  Newton's  Latin  given  by  Thompson  and  Tait. 


134  THE    WORLD-ENEKGY 

indifference.  The  extended  is  the  indifferent,  the  uncon- 
scious, and  is  therefore  capable  of  action  only  by  way  of 
reaction.  And  even  thus  its  action,  according  to  this 
law,  is  still  only  of  the  most  external  character.  It  is 
primarily  nothing  more  than  a  change  of  space-relation — 
mere  motion  of  translation. 

But  again,  since  the  movement  can  take  place  only 
from  external  impulse,  it  is  evident  that  the  direction  and 
quantity  of  the  motion  will  depend  upon  that  impulse. 
In  other  words  the  motion  must,  both  in  direction  and  in 
quantity,  be  directly  and  absolutely  proportioned  to  the 
impressed  force. 

Here,  then,  is  a  further  fundamental  condition  of  all 
actual  motion.  And  this  condition  is  formulated  in  what 
is  known  as  the 

SECOND    LAW    OF   MOTION. 

Newton's  statement  of  this  law  is  that:  " Change  of 
motion  is  proportional  to  the  impressed  force,  and  takes 
place  in  the  direction  of  the  straight  line  in  which  the 
force  acts." 

This  statement,  it  will  be  noticed,  assumes  that  all 
bodies  are  in  motion,  and  that  motion  can  therefore  never 
be  produced,  but  can  only  undergo  change.  This  change, 
however,  can  only  take  place  by  transferrence — by  one 
body  giving  up  its  motion  to  another.  For  thus  only  can 
we  conceive  a  force  to  be  "impressed"  upon  a  given 
body.  But  this  amounts  to  saying  that  on  the  whole 
motion  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished,  that  the 
total  quantity  of  motion  in  the  physical  universe  must 
forever  remain  unchanged. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  135 

Still  further,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Zenonian 
opinion  that  motion  is  impossible,  it  assumes  on  the  con- 
trary that  rest  is  impossible.  And  this  again  follows  evi- 
dently from  the  conception  of  the  extended  world  as 
constituted  by  and  of  force.  For  force,  to  be  force  at  all, 
must  act,  and  the  action  of  force  must  necessarily  involve 
motion. 

But  let  us  inquire  what  are  the  further  implications  of 
this  second  law  of  motion.  And  first  we  have  to  notice 
more  explicitly  that  the  second  law  is  but  the  positive  ex- 
pression of  what  is  negatively  announced  in  the  first.  The 
first  law  declares  substantially  that  no  body  has  the  power 
to  move  itself.  If  it  moves  it  must  be  moved  from  with- 
out; that  is,  by  an  "impressed  force/'  But  if  its  change 
of  motion  depends  wholly  on  impressed  forces,  then  it 
will  follow  that  the  change  of  motion  must  be  propor- 
tioned to  the  impressed  force,  and  take  place  in  the  direc- 
tion in  which  the  force  acts.  And  this  is  precisely  what 
the  second  law  positively  affirms.  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  first  and  second  laws  of  motion  are  merely  the  posi- 
tive and  negative  aspects  of  the  same  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  the  extended  world. 

But  this  fundamental  principle  is  an  all-pervasive  one. 
We  have  already  seen  that  every  force-center  is  necessa- 
rily related  to  every  other  force-center;  that,  in  fact, 
each  force-center  is  in  its  full  significance  an  infinitely 
extended  sphere,  which  again  but  indicates  the  concrete 
aspect  of  continuity  in  force  manifested  as  "matter/' 

This  same  conception  indeed  is  otherwise  expressed 
in  the  universal  law  of  gravitation  which  declares  in  effect 
that  every  body  is  concretely  related  to  every  other  body. 
Every  body  or  force-center,  then,  acts  on  every  other  body 


136  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

or  force-center.  So  that  no  single  body  in  all  the  uni- 
verse is  or  can  be  free  for  a  moment  from  the  action  of 
an  immeasurable  complex  of  impressed  forces. 

And  this  shows  that  the  first  law  of  motion  is  not 
only  negative,  but  that,  taken  literally,  it  presupposes  the 
case  of  a  body  not  acted  upon  by  external  forces.  That 
is,  taken  literally,  the  first  law  of  motion  presupposes  a 
case  that  can  never,  by  any  possibility,  be  verified,  or  even 
realized.  "  Every  body  continues  in  its  state  of  rest,  etc., 
unless  compelled  by  impressed  forces  to  change  that 
state."  But  every  body  is  perpetually  subjected  to  the 
action  of  impressed  forces.  Hence  a  state  of  "  rest  "is 
wholly  impossible  for  any  body  whatever.  So,  too,  a 
state  of  "uniform  motion  in  a  straight  line"  is  equally 
impossible  for  any  body  whatever,  for  the  reason  that 
the  impressed  forces  must  have  the  effect  to  constantly 
produce  changes  in  the  motion  of  the  body.  Thus,  at 
the  surface  of  the  earth,  a  falling  body  may  seem  to  the 
observer  to  move  in  a  straight  line.  But  the  observer 
has  only  to  reflect  that  the  earth  itself  is  revolving  on 
its  own  axis,  to  be  convinced  that  the  real  movement 
of  the  falling  body  has  the  direction  of  a  curve.  And 
when  he  reflects  further  that  the  earth  is  moving  in 
its  orbit  at  the  rate  of  nine  miles  or  more  each  second, 
he  can  but  see  that  the  curve  described  by  a  falling 
body  is  a  very  complex  one,  the  complexity  becoming 
incalculable  when  the  movement  of  the  solar  system 
through  space  is  taken  into  the  account. 

So,  too,  the  velocity  of  the  falling  body,  simply  with 
reference  to  the  earth,  is  approximately  calculable  as  a 
rate  at  any  given  moment,  the  increment  being  virtu- 
ally the  same  within  narrow  limits.  Add  to  this  the 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  137 

constantly  varying  velocity  of  the  falling  body  in  its  asso- 
ciation with  the  orbital  motion  of  the  earth,  and  the 
problem  becomes  highly  complex,  while,  with  the 
inclusion  of  the  unknown  velocity  of  the  solar  system 
through  space,  the  problem  of  the  velocity  of  the  falling 
body,  of  course,  becomes  altogether  insoluble. 

But  more  and  more  it  comes  to  light  that  motion, 
whether  in  respect  of  direction  or  of  velocity,  is  a  result 
that  can  arise  only  from  the  mutual  action  of  forces 
upon  each  other.  A  force  can  really  act,  or  become  an 
"  impressed  force/'  on  no  other  condition  than  that  of 
overcoming  resistance.  This  we  have  seen  to  be  involved 
in  the  very  nature  of  force.  And  when  it  is  declared, 
in  the  law  of  gravity,  that  every  body  attracts  every 
other  body,  it  is  declared,  in  effect,  that  between  every 
two  bodies  there  is  a  mutual  attraction.  Or,  since  every 
center  of  force  lays  hold  on  every  other  center  of  force, 
it  may  be  otherwise  said  that  every  force-center  attracts 
and  is  attracted  by,  repels  and  is  repelled  by,  every 
other  force-center  in  the  entire  range  of  the  extended 
world. 

Each  force-center,  then,  to  repeat  once  more,  is  a 
veritable  center  of  the  physical  universe,  and  as  such 
acts  upon  arid  is  in  turn  reacted  upon  by  every  other 
force-center.  So  that,  in  the  cases  of  falling  bodies 
just  named,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  one  factor  which  we 
have  wholly  overlooked,  and  that  is  the  fact  that  while 
any  given  body  is  falling  toward  the  earth,  the  earth  is 
also  falling  toward  that  body.  And  if  the  variations 
thus  introduced  into  its  movements  are  too  minute  for 
even  the  most  refined  infinitesimal  calculus  to  seize  and 
measure,  that  does  not  render  them  any  the  less  real. 


138  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

The  relation  of  attraction,  with  its  manifestation  of 
mutual  approach,  is  not  less  real,  as  between  fhe  merest 
mote  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  earth's  mass  on  the 
other,  than  between  the  earth  and  the  moon,  or  between 
the  units  composing  a  group  known  as  a  double  star, 
where  such  relation,  as  exhibited  in  the  revolution  of 
the  bodies  round  each  other,  is  so  immeasurably  more 
conspicuous.  By  a  "scientific"  fiction,  we  attribute  all 
the  motion  to  one  of  the  bodies  and  assume  that  the 
other  is  wholly  unaffected  by  the  relation. 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  in  the  case  of  "falling  bodies" 
this  does  not  affect  the  accuracy  of  the  results,  so  far 
as  external  measurement  is  concerned.  But  it  cannot 
fail  to  vitiate  the  results  more  or  less  seriously,  so  far  as 
really  scientific  thinking  is  concerned.  At  the  least,  the 
notes  of  caution  in  this  respect  ought  to  be  unfailingly 
given  in  text-books  of  physics,  and  ought  to  be  far 
more  strongly  emphasized  than  is  the  case  where  they 
are  given  at  all — at  least,  if  a  text-book  is  to  be  an 
instrumentality  in  mental  discipline,  and  not  merely  a 
means  toward  percentages  in  examination. 

Finally,  before  leaving  the  consideration  of  the  second 
law  of  motion,  let  us  note  the  ultimate  implication  of 
the  parallelogram  of  forces  as  illustrative  of  that  law. 

The  case  is  sufficiently  familiar.  Any  two  forces 
acting  (let  us  here  suppose)  from  different  directions,  and 
not  in  the  same  straight  line,  upon  one  and  the  same 
body  or  force-center,  will  each  produce  the  same  amount 
of  motion  in  the  body,  and  in  the  same  direction,  as  if 
it  alone  acted  upon  the  body.  Thus,  by  compounding 
the  two  motions,  we  may  find  at  what  point  the  body 
will  be  at  the  end  of  any  given  time. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  139 

If,  again,  the  body  be  acted  upon  by  any  number  of 
forces,  the  resultant  of  any  two  may  be  found,  then  this 
resultant  may  be  compounded  with  a  third,  and  this 
resultant  with  a  fourth,  and  so  on  until  the  resultant 
of  all  the  forces  has  been  ascertained. 

If,  finally,  the  forces  are  infinitely  multiple,  as  must 
be  the  case  in  the  total  round  of  force-centers  in  the 
physical  universe,  then  the  forces  acting  from  all  direc- 
tions upon  the  body  must  balance  each  other. 

And  this  will  be  the  more  readily  admitted  if  we 
remember  what  has  been  more  than  once  repeated,  that 
force  really  acts  or  can  act  only  in  overcoming  opposi- 
tion— it  being  now  necessary  to  add  the  explanatory 
clause — "or  in  balancing  opposite  phases  of  force." 

Such  must  be  the  conclusion  from  the  second  law 
of  motion.  And  it  is  really  to  this  conclusion  that 
Newton  gave  utterance  in  his  statement  of  the 

THIED    LAW    OF   MOTION. 

In  this  law  it  is  declared  that  "to  every  action  there 
is  always  an  equal  and  contrary  reaction ;  or,  the  mutual 
actions  of  any  two  bodies  are  always  equal  and  oppositely 
directed." 

Of  course,  the  most  elementary  case  to  which  this  law 
would  apply  would  be  that  of  the  action  and  reaction,  or, 
as  the  second  part  of  the  law  significantly  expresses  it, 
the  mutual  actions  between  two  bodies.  This  second 
part  is,  indeed,  manifestly  offered,  not  as  an  addition  to, 
but  rather  as  an  interpretation  of,  the  first  part. 

But  the  full  significance  of  this  third  law  is  to  be 
apprehended  only  when  it  is  regarded  in  connection  with 
the  second  law  in  its  widest  range  of  meaning.  We  have 


140  THE'  WORLD-ENERGY 

just  seen  that  the  second  law,  rightly  understood,,  already 
anticipates  the  mutual  actions  of  force  affirmed  in  the 
third  law,  and  that  it  points  out,  through  the  illustrative 
parallelogram  of  forces,  this  further  vitally  important 
point :  that  the  whole  truth  of  the  motion  of  any  body, 
whether  mote  or  star,  is  to  be  known  only  by  compounding 
into  one  all  the  forces  impressed  upon  such  body. 

Let  us  now  further  recall  the  fact  that  in  the  very 
nature  of  force,  as  the  essence  of  matter,  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  an  isolated  body  in  all  the  universe,  but, 
rather,  that  every  body,  or  force-center,  is  necessarily 
related  concretely  with  every  other  body  or  force-center — 
"bodies"  being  but  the  discrete  phases  of  "force"  or 
' '  energy,"  which  again  is  the  name  given  to  the  physically 
continuous ;  that  is,  to  the  reality  which  occupies  space. 
Then,  holding  these  several  points  together  in  our  minds, 
it  must  become  evident  that  the  third  law  of  motion  is 
applicable  equally  to  any  and  every  group  of  bodies,  to 
the  most  complex  as  well  as  to  the  simplest  case  of 
physical  relations  manifested  in  the  mutual  actions  of 
bodies.  That  is,  the  third  law  of  motion  is  applicable  to 
the  total  sum  of  actions  and  reactions,  or  of  mutual 
actions  constituting  the  physical  universe  as  a  whole. 

Here,  indeed,  we  come  upon  that  universal  relation  of 
every  body  to  every  other  body,  to  which  Newton  gave 
definition  in  the  law  of  gravity,  and  which  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  consider  more  fully  in  a  succeeding  chapter. 

Glancing  now  once  more  at  the  three  laws  of  motion, 
their  organic  relation  to  each  other  becomes  strikingly 
manifest.  The  first  law  expresses  negatively  the  funda- 
mental characteristic  of  the  external  world,  declaring  it 
to  be  a  world  of  inertia — a  world  in  which  there  is  no 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  141 

spontaneous  action,  and,  hence,  a  world  in  which  motion 
can  only  occur  through  external  impulse;  that  is,  through 
"impressed  forces/' 

The  second  law  expresses  positively  the  externality  of 
the  physical  world  by  declaring  that  whatever  motion  a 
body  possesses  it  has  received  from  without ;  its  motion  is 
always  in  the  direction  of,  and  is  directly  proportioned  to, 
the  impressed  forces. 

But  the  union  of  these  two  phases  shows  also  that, 
after  all,  no  body  is  moved  wholly  by  external  or  im- 
pressed forces.  For  the  body  can  in  reality  be  acted 
upon  only  in  so  far  as  it  itself  presents  to  the  action  a 
corresponding  force  of  reaction. 

Thus,  finally,  the  third  law  declares  in  effect  absolutely 
that  the  externality  of  nature  is,  in  truth,  a  completely 
reflexive  externality.  The  total  round  of  nature  presents 
us  with  an  externality  which  already  bears  within  it  the 
factor  of  internality.  It  may  be  true  that  no  body  is 
able,  apart  from  other  bodies,  to  change  its  own  state. 
But  there  is  manifestly  a  vital,  indestructible  relationship 
between  body  and  body,  such  that  change  is  ceaselessly 
effected  in  every  body. 

Chemistry,  indeed,  knows  nothing  of  actions  but  only 
of  reactions.  It  is  as  if  one  were  to  say:  "The  'atom/ 
the  isolated  body,  can  indeed  change  its  state  in  no  other 
way  than  through  impressed  forces,  but  in  the  totality  of 
bodies  there  is  a  principle  initiative  of  change.  The 
totality  alone  is  truly  active.  Particular  aspects  of  the 
totality  are  manifested  only  as  reactions,  or  as  mutually 
balancing  phases  of  the  total  action/' 

It  turns  out,  then,  that  these  three  laws  are  but 
the  three  successively  deepening  phases  of  a  rational 


142  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

conception  of  the  fundamental  energy  which  constitutes 
the  physical  world.  Or,  we  may  say:  just  as  the  three 
fundamental  laws  of  thought  all  coalesce  into  the  one  pri- 
mordial law  of  self -harmony ,  so  the  three  fundamental 
laws  of  motion  in  the  material  world  all  coalesce  into 
the  one  primordial  law  of  equilibrium. 

What  is  ultimately  implied  in  this  equilibrium  will 
appear  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTEE  XIII. 

ENERGY   AS   ADEQUATE   CAUSE   OF   MOTION. 

HERE,  then,  we  have  a  further  development  of  the 
world  as  a  self-measured  whole.  Each  particular 
phase  can  only  act  as  it  is  in  turn  acted  upon,  and  the 
reaction  is  always  precisely  equal  to  the  action.  Every 
force-center,  then,  may  be  said  to  have  its  own  action 
reflected  back  to  itself. 

At  the  same  time,  the  thorough-going  externality  of 
the  forces  of  nature  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that  in  every 
phase  of  activity  either  side  may  be  regarded  indifferently 
as  action  or  as  reaction ;  though  this,  too,  has  its  deep- 
reaching  suggestion  that  all  action  is  equally  reaction,  and 
that  all  reaction  is  itself  a  phase  of  the  total  initiative,  or 
spontaneous  action. 

In  fact,  as  has  already  become  evident,  it  is  only 
through  a  balancing  of  action  and  reaction  that  force  can 
be  force  at  all.  The  centripetal  and  the  centrifugal 
modes  of  force  cannot  exist,  save  in  complete  interfusion. 
And,  let  us  repeat,  force  can  be  force  at  all  only  through 
acting.  A  force  that  does  not  act  is  not  a  force.  And 
force  can  act  only  as  a  strain  against  an  opposing  phase  of 
force. 

Evidently,  then,  the  totality  of  " forces"  in  the  uni- 
verse must  be  completely  self-balanced.  Equilibrium  is 
the  only  possible  condition  in  which  the  totality  of 
energy  can  be  conceived  as  existing. 

143 


144  THE   WORLD-ENEKGY 

At  first  view,  indeed,  this  would  seem  to  involve  the 
absolute  impossibility  of  motion.  And  it  is  not  to  be 
disguised,  that  even  from  the  standpoint  we  have  here 
reached  the  existence  of  motion  must  once  more  seem  to 
be  something  fairly  inexplicable;  and  this  for  the  reason 
that  in  itself  matter  is  wholly  destitute  of  the  principle 
of  motion — a  reason  quite  different  from  and  far  more 
valid  than  any  of  those  given  in  the  Zenonian  dialectic. 
Doubtless,  however,  we  may  shortly  be  able  to  advance 
to  a  standpoint  from  which  the  contradiction  will  be  seen 
to  be  not  without  its  reasonable  solution. 

Meanwhile  we  may  tentatively  insist  upon  the  neces- 
sary interrelation  between  attraction  and  repulsion,  as 
at  least  possibly  variable  locally.  Indeed,  as  appeared 
in  our  investigation  concerning  this  interrelation,  there 
must  be,  as  its  necessary  outcome,  an  infinitude  of  force- 
centers  throughout  space. 

So,  also,  each  of  these  force-centers  must  still  be 
related  to — that  is,  must  extend  out  so  as  to  include  and 
thus  lay  hold  upon — every  other  force-center.  But  this 
can  only  mean  that  the  given  force-center  is  in  reality 
nothing  else  than  the  focus  of  a  force-sphere  extending 
indefinitely  outward  on  all  sides  and  hence  becoming 
more  and  more  attenuated  in  proportion  to  the  distance 
from  the  center. 

The  degree  of  action  and  reaction  between  any  two 
force-spheres  must  then  depend  upon  the  distance  be- 
tween their  centers.  More  precisely,  such  interaction, 
in  its  direct  and  most  important  phase,  can  take  place 
only  through  a  single  direction,  joining  their  centers. 
And  further,  each  sphere,  so  far  as  its  action  on  the 
other  is  concerned,  may  be  considered  to  terminate  in  a 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  145 

circumference  whose  radius  is  the  distance  between  the 
centers  of  the  spheres. 

Since,  then,  each  of  the  bodies  or  force-centers  occu- 
pies only  a  small  portion  of  the  circumference  of  the 
force-sphere  into  which  the  other  center  expands,  it  is 
evident  that  the  interaction  between  the  spheres  will 
not  only  depend  upon  the  distance  between  the  centers, 
but  will  conform  to  the  law  of  the  relation  between  the 
surfaces  of  spheres;  namely,  the  law  that  those  sur- 
faces are  to  each  other  as  the  squares  of  their  radii. 

Of  course,  then,  so  far  as  mere  distance  is  con- 
sidered as  the  determining  condition,  the  attraction  or 
repulsion  between  two  force-centers  at  any  given  dis- 
tance will  be  four  times  as  great,  for  example,  as  that 
between  two  other  equal  centers  separated  from  each  other 
by  twice  that  distance.  Each  force-sphere  must,  besides, 
act  from  its  center  or  focus  outward  in  all  directions  on 
all  other  force-spheres,  in  accordance  with  this  law. 

Thus  we  arrive  at  one  of  the  two  fundamental  phases 
of  what  since  Newton's  time  has  been  accepted  in  the 
scientific  world  as  the  universal  law  of  gravitation. 

The  other  phase,  involving  mass,  however,  remains  to 
be  accounted  for.  And  here  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
force  or  energy  is  the  substance  of  things.  It  has  also 
developed  that  the  action  of  force  must  necessarily  result 
in  the  differentiation  of  force-spheres  at  all  points 
throughout  space. 

And  yet  this  setting  up  or  development  of  force- 
spheres  is  but  the  stress  of  balanced  phases  of  force, 
which,  so  far  as  can  be  seen  from  our  present  stand- 
point, must,  as  has  been  said,  prevent  instead  of  pro- 
ducing motion.  In  short,  upon  the  pre-supposition  of 


146  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

mere  "physical"  force  motion  must  forever  remain  inex- 
plicable. According  to  that  standpoint,  all  action  is 
and  can  be  only  from  without.  No  single  change  in  any 
body  in  all  the  universe  can  take  place  save  through 
impressed  forces;  that  is,  forces  acting  upon  the  body 
from  without.  And  it  only  needs  that  this  law  be  reso- 
lutely followed  round  in  all  its  applications  to  see  that  as 
no  portion  of  the  -extended  world  contains  within  itself 
as  such  any  initial  principle  of  motion,  so  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  look  beyond  the  merely  physical  phase  of 
the  universe  to  find  that  principle.  A  system  of  merely 
"impressed  forces"  could,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
only  result  in  absolute  equilibrium,  excluding  motion 
absolutely. 

This,  it  need  hardly  be  added,  Newton  saw  with  per- 
fect clearness,  and  accordingly  assumed  a  non-physical 
cause  of  motion. 

And  yet  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  if  the  prin- 
ciple of  motion  is  not  within,  neither  can  it  be  beyond 
the  physical  universe.  For,  were  that  principle  wholly 
beyond  or  outside  the  extended  world,  it  could  indeed 
have  no  relation  to  that  world.  Or,  if  such  relation  be 
allowed  to  be  possible,  it  must  at  least  leave  the  extended 
world  in  a  state  of  inertia,  indifference,  or  passivity. 

So  much,  indeed,  Newton's  third  law  of  motion  really 
implies.  And  yet,  as  was  pointed  out  on  a  former  page, 
the  "  passive  "  is  that  which  is  acted  upon,  is  that  which 
receives  action.  But,  in  this  very  fact  of  receiving  action, 
the  "  passive  "  necessarily  also  proves  to  be  active.  For 
it  can  receive  action  only  through  itself  reacting.  Nay, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  action  and  reaction  are  but 
complementary  phases  of  every  possible  action  in  which 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  147 

either  phase  may  equally  be  considered  as  action  or  as 
reaction,  and  hence,  as  both  action  and  reaction. 

Or,  otherwise  stated,  the  active  can  exert  its  action 
upon  the  passive  only  in  so  far  as  the  passive  reacts  upon 
the  active.  And  in  receiving  the  reaction  of  the  passive 
the  active  itself  proves  to  be  necessarily  also  passive. 

This  much,  let  us  repeat,  is  already  contained  implic- 
itly in  the  laws  of  motion. 

The  conception  of  a  merely  passive  world,  then,  proves 
to  be  self-contradictory,  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
purely  active  world,  from  which  passivity  is  excluded, 
is  seen  to  be  impossible.  We  can  only  conclude,  there- 
fore, that  a  real  world  must  involve  both  these  charac- 
teristics as  the  necessary  complementary  phases  of  its 
very  existence. 

And  this  amounts  to  the  same  as  if  we  were  to  say: 
The  concrete  totality  of  the  world  or  universe  is  a 
necessarily  self-related  totality.  For,  as  a  totality,  and 
the  totality,  it  can  indeed  be  related  to  nothing  else 
than  just  itself.  All  its  relations  of  activity  are  rela- 
tions of  self-activity.  As  active,  it  can  act  only  upon 
itself,  while  as  passive  it  can  only  receive  its  own 
activity. 

The  totality  of  "  forces "  in  the  universe  is,  there- 
fore, from  its  very  nature,  a  self -active  or  spontaneous 
energy,  and  as  such,  contains  within  itself  the  principle 
and  cause  of  all  movement. 

And  yet,  while  this  principle  is  involved  in  the 
merely  physical  universe,  the  principle  itself  proves  to 
evolve,  through  its  own  activity,  something  more  than  a 
merely  physical  universe ;  and  the  something-more  is  pre- 
cisely the  explicit  aspect  of  this  principle  of  spontaneity 


148  THE   WORLD-ENEKGY 

itself.  It  is,  in  other  words,  a  self-unfolding  prin- 
ciple, which  presents  phases  reaching  wholly  beyond 
(in  the  sense  of  being  absolutely  superior  to)  the  realm 
of  the  merely  physical. 

It  becomes  increasingly  evident,  then,  that,  while  we 
must  indeed  look  within,  we  must  also  and  equally 
look  beyond  the  extended  world,  if  we  would  discover 
the  true  principle  of  actual  movement  in  that  world. 
And  this  is,  in  a  manner,  confirmed  by  the  significant 
change  that  has  recently  come  over  physical  science  in 
its  use  of  certain  terms. 

When  Mr.  Spencer  wrote  his  ''First  Principles,"  the 
expression,  "conservation  of  force,"  was  in  fashion. 
Since  then  this  expression  has  been  modified,  by  common 
consent,  so  as  to  put  the  word  energy  in  place  of  the 
word  force. 

In  this  substitution  there  is  manifest  a  distinct 
advance  from  a  relatively  more  to  a  relatively  less 
mechanical  view  of  nature.  For  not  only  is  the  ele- 
ment of  spontaneity  and  personality  implied  in  the 
popular  use  of  the  term  "energy,"  as  opposed  to  the 
phase  of  mechanical  necessity  implied  in  the  term 
"force;"  but  the  use  of  the  term  energy  itself  takes  us 
back  inevitably  to  Aristotle's  use  of  the  same  term 
(ivspyeia)  as  the  name  for  that  ultimate  unit  of  power  to 
the  activity  of  which  he  traces  all  modes  of  reality,  and 
which  he  ultimately  names  the  Absolute,  Divine  Spirit. 

Another  indication  of  the  feeling  among  scientists  that 
the  mechanical  view  is  inadequate  and  that  a  term 
expressive  of  spontaneity  is  required  in  describing  the 
ultimate  unit  of  power  is  furnished  in  a  suggestion  by 
Professor  Huxley,  which  was  followed  by  Mr.  Spencer. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  149 

The  latter  found  the  expression,  "conservation  of  force/' 
objectionable  because  it  "implies  a  conserver  and  an  act 
of  conservation ; "  which  would  seem  to  mean  that  the 
expression  implies  that  force  is  conserved  by  an  agency 
apart  from  force.  Accordingly,  at  Professor  Huxley's 
suggestion,  Mr.  Spencer  *  substituted  the  expression, 
"  persistence  of  force,"  for  ' '  conservation  of  force. " 

But  the  persistence  of  force  (or  energy,  as  we  are  now- 
to  say)  surely  implies  that  the  ultimate  unit  is  self -active ; 
that  its  very  persistence  is  a  manifestation  of  spontaneity. 
In  other  words,  the  expression,  "persistence  of  energy/' 
is  preferable  to  the  expression,  "conservation  of  energy/' 
only  because  it  brings  very  near  to  the  surface  the  concep- 
tion that  the  process  of  the  conservation  of  energy  involves 
the  immeasurably  significant  characteristic  of  ^//'-con- 
servation. It  is  thus,  and  thus  alone,  that  it  does  or  can 
"persist." 

It  is  this  view  of  a  self-active,  self-conserved  energy 
that  opens  the  way  to  an  adequate  explanation  of  motion. 
And  now,  having  obtained  a  first  assured  view  of  a  prin- 
ciple adequate  to  explain  to  the  reason  what  to  the  senses 
is  the  unquestionable  fact  of  motion,  let  us  return  to  the 
question  of  the  accepted  law  of  universal  gravitation. 

*  See  note  to  heading  of  Chapter  VI.  of  "First  Principles.''1 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE   LAW   OF   UNIVERSAL   GRAVITATION. 

r~pHE  spontaneous  World-Energy,  as  necessarily  related 
-*•  to  itself  alone,  cannot  move  as  a  whole.  That  is, 
there  can  be  no  change  of  space-relation  for  the  total 
physical  universe.  For,  as  a  unit,  even  if  finite,  it  pre- 
sents the  conditions  of  a  single,  absolutely  isolated 
"body"  in  space,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  could  not  be 

said  to  be  either  in  motion  or  at  rest. 

« 

On  the  other  hand,  as  a  totality  limited  only  by  itself, 
it  is  essentially  infinite.  And  if  this  be  understood  to 
include  space-relations  (as  it  must  so  far  as  the  totality  is 
extended),  it  is,  in  dimensions,  co-extensive  with  space 
itself — to  which,  indeed,  as  we  have  already  seen,  there 
is  nothing  reasonable  to  oppose. 

But  though  the  World-Energy  as  an  infinite  whole 
cannot  move  or  change  place,  yet  as  self -active  energy  it 
cannot  fail  to  produce,  through  its  own  self -activity,  infi- 
nite movement  within  itself.  Not  only  must  the  stress 
of  the  opposed  modes  of  force  result  in  the  development 
of  an  infinitude  of  mutually  inclusive  force-spheres;  but 
it  must  also  result  in  the  aggregation  of  the  foci  or 
nuclei  of  such  force-spheres.  For  the  very  first  phase  of 
the  movement  of  the  force-centers  must  increase  the 
distances  between  some  and  diminish  the  distances  be- 
tween others,  thus  increasing  the  tension  on  one  side  and 
diminishing  it  on  the  other.  That  is,  with  decrease  in 

150 


ITS  SELF-COKSEEVATION".  151 

distance  the  gravitative  strain  must  become  intensified 
between  centers  approaching  each  other,  just  as,  on  the 
other  hand,  with  increase  in  distance  the  strain  between 
those  receding  from  each  other  must  undergo  corre- 
sponding diminution. 

Thus  there  must  arise  aggregations  of  force-centers 
within  certain  regions  surrounded  by  relatively  vacant 
fields  of  space.  And  this  conclusion  will  appear  the  more 
substantial  as  in  the  further  course  of  our  argument  we 
find  increasing  reason  for  believing  the  World-Energy  to 
be  guided  in  its  activity  by  a  consistent  method;  or,  in 
other  words,  in  so  far  as  we  find  reason  to  regard  the 
World-Energy  as  itself  an  infinite,  self-conscious  process. 
But  again  these  force-centers  or  nuclei  of  force  are  but 
the  more  condensed  portions  of  indefinitely  extended 
spheres.  There  is,  therefore,  a  tension  of  force  consti- 
tuting each  of  these  separately,  and  at  the  same  time 
relating  each  through  its  indefinitely  diffused  substance 
to  all  other  centers. 

In  every  single  force- center,  then,  we  already  have  the 
simplest  relation  of  force  constituting  matter.  And  this 
nucleus  of  an  indefinitely  extended,  infinitely  diffused 
force-sphere  is  just  that  part  which,  through  the  very 
fact  of  its  being  such  nucleus  or  focus  of  force,  presents 
most  resistance  to  the  action  of  external  force. 

It  is  this  nucleus,  then,  that  constitutes  the  "atom" 
which  thus  proves  to  be  something  very  far  different 
from  the  once  popular  atom,  consisting  of  a  simple,  iso- 
lated, infinitely  hard,  infinitely  small,  absolutely  bounded 
piece  of  some  incomprehensible  something  wholly  apart 
from  force,  and  which  thus  had  no  possible  office  to  per- 
form in  the  economy  of  the  universe.  On  the  contrary,  it 


152  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

is  the  primal  element — that  is,  the  most  elementary 
phase  of  existence — and  from  the  aggregation  of  such 
the  whole  extended  world  is  constituted.  It  is  to  be 
still  more  explicitly  stated,  too,  that  any  given  "  atom  " 
is  merely  a  more  or  less  momentary  unit  arising  through 
the  ceaseless  process  of  the  World-Energy,  and  that  such 
unit  must  inevitably  be  dissolved  and  rediffused  through 
the  same  perpetual  Process.  Thus  not  only  is  matter 
infinitely  divisible  in  the  merely  abstract  metaphysical 
sense.  It  is  also  forever  undergoing  infinite  division  in 
the  "concrete"  physical  sense.  Here,  too,  it  may  be 
remarked  by  the  way,  we  get  a  glimpse  of  such  truth  as 
there  is  in  the  doctrine  of  emanation  and  absorption; 
though,  doubtless,  in  a  symbolical  sense,  that  doctrine 
has  a  much  higher  significance  than  this  merely  physical 
one  of  the  emanating  atoms. 

It  may  help  to  make  clearer  what  is  here  meant  by  a 
force-center,  or  nucleus  of  a  force-sphere  to  say,  by  way 
of  rough  illustration,  that  the  earth  itself,  with  its  rela- 
tively solid  nucleus,  and  liquid  (oceanic)  exterior, 
extended  indefinitely  into  space  by  the  envelope  of 
atmosphere,  shading  imperceptibly  into  the  "ether,"  is 
but  a  gigantic  atom  pursuing  its  complex  motions  in  the 
vast  molecule  of  the  solar  system.  In  other  words,  the 
atom  is  here  conceived  to  be  but  the  minute  and  relatively 
dense  core  of  a  sphere  of  force,  infinitely  extended  indeed, 
but  also  attenuated  more  and  more  in  proportion  to  the 
distance  from  its  center. 

And  here  let  us  remark,  by  the  way,  that  we  have  in 
what  precedes  the  rational  explanation  of  .  "  action  at  a 
distance/'  The  "explanation,"  indeed,  explains  it  out  of 
existence.  There  is  and  can  be  no  such  thing  as  action 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  153 

at  a  distance.  A  thing  acts  only  "where  it  is;"  and  to 
Carlyle's  query:  "Where  is  it?"  the  proper  answer  is: 
Everywhere. 

Of  course  it  is  not  everywhere  in  the  grosser  forms 
which  directly  aifect  our  senses.  On  the  contrary,  as 
must  be  manifest  in  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  only 
the  infinitesimal  nucleus  of  a  force-sphere  that  enters 
into  intimate  combination  with  other  nuclei,  resulting  in 
the  building  up  of  "bodies"  sufficiently  dense  and 
unyielding  to  definitely  impress  the  senses. 

Every  one  familiar  with  the  action  of  a  magnet  must 
see  at  once  what  is  here  meant.  With  the  magnet  there 
is  so-called  "action  at  a  distance,"  and  this  is  rendered 
visible  by  the  visible  eifect;  for  example,  on  iron  filings, 
the  action  taking  place,  even  with  a  feeble  magnet, 
through  thick  plate  glass.  So  also  the  effect  of  such 
action  becomes  visible  through  magnetic  induction  and 
all  its  peculiarities. 

Instead,  however,  of  "action  at  a  distance"  in  such 
cases,  the  explanation  to  be  given  on  the  theory  here 
developed  must  rather  be:  That  the  force-spheres  of 
whose  nuclei  the  magnet  is  constituted  are,  in  their  very 
nature,  as  themselves  constituted  by  the  interaction  of 
attraction  and  repulsion,  elastic  and  therefore  subject  to 
condensation  and  rarefaction  in  greater  or  less  degree, 
according  as  the  more  immediate  conditions  of  the  nuclei 
change;  and  that  the  magnetization  of  a  piece  of  iron  or 
steel  consists  in  the  special  condensation— temporarily  in 
the  iron,  "permanently"  in  the  steel — of  the  portions  of 
the  force-spheres  more  immediately  surrounding  the 
nuclei,  and  thus,  while  not  adding  to  the  body  as  visible 
or  ponderable,  yet  increases  its  force-tension  sufficiently 


154  THE   WOELD-ENEKGY 

to  visibly  affect  through  short  distances  other  portions  of 
matter  of  like  characteristics. 

And  this  seems  the  more  reasonable  as  an  explanation 
as  the  force  is  found  to  be  under  the  same  law  as  gravi- 
tation with  regard  to  distance — that  is,  the  magnetic 
attraction  or  repulsion  is  inversely  as  the  square  of  the 
distance. 

But  this,  it  may  be  repeated,  is  in  the  present  place 
merely  incidental.  What  must  be  held  firmly  in  mind 
here  is,  first,  the  action  of  force  producing  aggregations 
of  force-centers,  and,  secondly,  the  significance  of  such 
aggregations. 

As  each  force-center  is  essentially  an  "atom,"  and  as 
" bodies"  are  built  up  from  such  "atoms,"  it  is  evident 
that  the  quantity  of  matter  within  a  given  body  will 
depend  precisely  upon  the  number  of  force-centers  con- 
stituting the  body.  But  the  quantity  of  matter  in  a  body 
is  called  its  mass. 

Evidently,  then,  so  far  as  the  universal  law  of  gravita- 
tion declares  that  every  body  attracts  every  other  body 
with  a  force  whose  magnitude  is  directly  as  the  product  of 
their  masses,  it  is  but  formulating  one  of  the  necessary 
relations  between  groups  of  force-centers.  For  each 
force-center,  independently  of  the  others  in  the  same 
group,  must  attract  every  force-center  in  the  group 
constituting  the  distant  body,  and  would  do  so  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  way  and  in  the  same  degree  were 
it  widely  separated  from  the  other  members  of  its  own 
group.  Hence,  with  each  additional  force-center  in 
any  given  body,  such  body,  as  a  whole,  must  exert 
a  still  greater  force  of  attraction  upon  every  other 
body. 


ITS   SELF-CCWSEKVATION.  155 

At  the  same  time,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  attractions  are  exerted,  not  between  the  masses  as 
such,  but  only  between  the  ultimate  force-centers  con- 
stituting the  masses.  And,  finally,  since  the  qualitative 
diiferences  in  matter  arise  from  the  complexity  of  group- 
ing of  force-centers,  it  is  evident  that  the  different 
"  kinds "  of  matter  could  have  no  effect  whatever  upon 
the  intensity  of  the  gravitative  pull  between  any  two 
force-centers. 

Here,  again,  then,  our  theory,  in  the  free  course  of  its 
development,  presents  a  simple,  natural  explanation  of 
what  has  long  since  been  experimentally  shown  to  be  the 
fact — namely,  that  gravitation  is  invariably  proportional 
to  the  quantity  of  matter,  and  is  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  influenced  by  the  kind  of  matter. 

The  experiments  of  Newton  rendered  this  conclusion 
highly  probable,  while  the  more  elaborate  and  delicate 
experiments  of  the  German  astronomer  Bessel,  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  present  century,  gave  it  such  complete 
confirmation  as  to  leave  no  further  room  for  doubt.  * 

We  have,  then,  arrived  at  a  rational  account  of  the 
fact  generalized  in  the  first  part  of  the  universal  law  of 
gravitation,  as  that  law  is  usually  stated,  though  it  is  now 
evident  that  its  more  adequate  explanation  must  be 
sought  through  the  second  part  of  the  law,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  law  as  stated  in  full.  "Every  particle  of 
matter  in  the  universe  attracts  every  other  particle  with  a 
force,  whose  direction  is  that  of  the  line  joining  the  two, 
and  whose  magnitude  is  directly  as  the  product  of  their 
masses,  and  inversely  as  the  square  of  their  distance  from 

*See  Whewell,  "Hist,  of  Inductive  Sciences,"  3d  (N.  Y.)  Ed.,  I.,  549. 


156  THE   WOKLD-ENEKGY 

each  other."*     This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of 
momentum. 

*See  Thomson  and  Tait,  "Elements  of  Natural  Philosophy,"  2d  Ed., 
I.,  167. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

MOMENTUM. 

WE  have  next  to  trace  out  the  necessary  implications 
or  corollaries  of  the  law  of  gravity.  And,  first, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  the  attraction  is  between  the 
ultimate  force-centers  severally,  and  not  between  aggre- 
gated masses,  as  such. 

At  the  same  time,  the  mass  itself  is  nothing  else  than 
an  aggregation  of  force-centers,  and  the  attractive  force 
exerted  by  a  given  body  must  therefore  be  directly  and 
exactly  proportional  to  its  mass. 

Between  any  two  bodies,  or  aggregations  of  force- 
centers,  then,  there  will  be  a  constant  strain,  tending 
to  bring  the  bodies  nearer  to  each  other  with  a  force 
proportional  to  the  product  of  the  masses  of  the  two. 
That  is,  there  will  be  a  constant  pull  between  each 
force-center  in  the  one  body,  and  every  force-center  in 
the  other. 

It  is  to  such  strain,  indeed,  that  we  have  already 
traced  the  primary  aggregation  of  force-centers  into  sin- 
gle masses.  And  it  is  evident  that  the  continuance  of 
the  strain  between  the  force-centers  of  any  one  of  these 
already  formed  groups,  and  the  force-centers  of  any  other 
group,  is  but  the  continuation  of  the  same  tendency. 
The  motion  due  to  the  strain,  therefore,  can  but  result 
in  further  aggregation  through  the  meeting  and  coales- 
cence of  such  groups  into  larger  ones. 

157 


158  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

But  the  motion  produced  in  these  cases,  according  to 
the  second  law,  must  be  proportional  to  the  impressed 
force,  and  must  take  place  in  the  direction  of  the  line 
in  which  the  force  acts ;  that  is,  in  the  direction  of  the 
line  joining  the  mutually  attracting  groups  of  force- 
centers.  And  not  only  so,  but  in  tracing  the  develop- 
ment of  the  conditions  of  the  action  of  force,  we  have 
seen  that,  as  indicated  in  the  formulation  of  the  universal 
law  of  gravity,  the  force  impressed  upon  each  other  by 
the  approaching  groups  must  increase  with  the  decrease 
of  the  distance  between  them — must  ever  be  inversely 
proportional  to  the  square  of  that  distance. 

But,  again,  the  motion  is  proportional  to  the  im- 
pressed force.  And  we  have  now  to  inquire  whether 
this  impressed  force,  and  consequent  motion,  is  the  same, 
or  different,  for  the  two  bodies. 

To  this  the  answer  must  be  that  either  can  act  upon 
the  other  only  so  far  as  it  is  acted  upon  by  the  other. 
The  action  is  necessarily  mutual ;  or,  the  action  and  reac- 
tion between  them  must  be  equal,  as  well  as  in  opposite 
directions.  Hence,  the  quantity  of  force  impressed  by 
the  greater  mass  upon  the  less  is  precisely  the  same  as 
that  impressed  by  the  less  upon  the  greater.  And  when 
we  recall  the  fact  that  the  distance  separating  them  is  at 
any  moment  but  one  and  the  same  distance,  it  is  evident 
that  the  force  of  gravity  which  the  one  body  exerts  or 
"impresses"  upon  any  other  body  must  necessarily  be 
precisely  the  same  as  that  exerted  or  impressed  by  the 
second  upon  the  first.  Indeed,  the  gravitative  strain 
exerted  by  the  two  bodies  upon  each  other  consti- 
tutes but  one  indivisible  relation  between  the  attracting 
bodies. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  159 

Since,  then,  the  quantity  of  force  impressed  by  and 
upon  each  body,  in  the  case  of  any  gravitating  pair, 
is  precisely  the  same  whatever  the  relative  mass,  it 
follows,  necessarily,  that  the  two  bodies  will  each 
acquire,  through  their  mutual  action,  precisely  the 
same  quantity  of  motion  as  the  other.  And  yet,  it  is 
not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  quantity  of  motion  de- 
pends directly  and  essentially  upon  the  quantity  of 
matter. 

It  is  here,  indeed,  that  we  find  time  entering  in  a 
definite,  quantitative  way,  into  consideration  as  an  essen- 
tial element  of  motion.  We  saw  at  an  earlier  stage  of 
our  inquiry,  that  motion  is  a  change  of  space-relations. 
But  change  necessarily  implies  succession.  Hence, 
motion  can  take  place  only  as  a  continuous  modification 
of  space-relation  between  bodies. 

Fundamentally,  however,  the  space-relations  exist 
between  the  ultimate  force-centers.  We  have,  indeed, 
already  traced  the  law  of  variation  of  that  order  of 
space-relations  directly  constituted  by  the  force  of 
gravity.  It  is  required  now,  especially,  to  trace  the 
law  of  change  of  space-relations  as  relations  of  distance; 
for  this  is  conspicuously  the  class  of  space-relations  whose 
change  constitutes  motion. 

Note  now,  again,  that  all  space-relations,  whether  of 
distance  or  of  direction,  are  primarily  relations  between 
ultimate  force-centers;  whence  it  follows  that  the  quan- 
tity of  change  in  those  relations  will  necessarily  depend 
directly  upon  the  number  of  force-centers  involved  in 
the  change.  The  greater  the  number  of  force-centers — 
that  is,  the  greater  the  quantity  of  "  matter,"  the  space- 
relations  of  which  undergo  ^change — the  greater  must 


160  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

be  the  quantity  of  that  change.  In  other  words,  the 
greater  will  be  the  quantity  of  motion. 

It  is  evident,,  then,  that  while  in  every  respect  the 
actual  force  impressed  upon  each  other  by  two  gravi- 
tating bodies,  must  be  the  same  for  the  one  as  for  the 
other,  the  quantity  of  resultant  motion  of  each  must  be 
directly  dependent  upon,  and  precisely  proportional  to 
the  mass  of  the  body.  The  greater  the  mass,  the  greater 
the  quantity  of  motion;  the  less  the  mass,  the  less  the 
quantity  of  motion. 

Nevertheless,  as  we  have  but  just  seen,  the  second  law 
of  motion  declares,  what  proved  on  investigation  to  be 
necessarily  true,  that  change  of  motion  is  precisely  pro- 
portional to  the  impressed  force.  Evidently,  then,  the 
mass  of  a  body  is  not  the  sole  factor  of  motion. 

Indeed,  it  has  just  been  shown  that,  since  decrease  of 
distance  between  gravitating  bodies  intensifies  the  force 
impressed  by  each  upon  the  other,  and  since  the  motion 
is  always  proportional  to  the  impressed  force,  the  quan- 
tity of  motion  necessarily  varies  with  the  distance.  But 
the  variation  here  is  a  variation  in  the  rate  of  approach. 
Each  of  the  bodies  must  approach  the  other  with  a 
regularly  increasing  velocity.  And  yet,  it  has  been 
shown  that  the  force  impressed  by  each  body  upon  the 
other  is  precisely  the  same  in  quantity  as  that  impressed 
upon  it  by  the  other.  In  short  the  "impressed  force"  is  a 
relation  in  which  each  acts  and  is  acted  upon  in  precisely 
the  same  degree. 

The  same  quantity  of  force,  then,  is,  in  the  one  case, 
impressed  upon  a  greater  mass,  in  the  other  case  upon 
a  less  mass.  But,  where  there  is  less  mass,  there  is 
also  less  resistance  to  change  of  motion.  In  this  respect, 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  161 

then,  the  less  mass  will  yield  more  readily  to  the  mutual 
attraction  than  will  the  greater  mass.  The  less  mass 
will,  therefore,  acquire  the  greater  velocity.  And  its 
velocity  at  any  given  moment  must  be  precisely  as  much 
greater  than  that  of  the  greater  body  as  its  mass  is  less 
than  that  of  the  greater. 

It  is  now  evident,  that  while  the  greater  body  has  pre- 
cisely as  much  greater  quantity  of  motion  than  has  the 
less  body,  as  its  mass  exceeds  the  mass  of  the  less,  when 
we  regard  the  quantity  of  motion  from  the  side  of  the 
number  of  force-centers  moved;  it  has,  when  we  con- 
sider the  quantity  of  motion  from  the  side  of  velocity, 
as  much  less  motion  than  the  smaller  body,  as  its  mass 
exceeds  the  mass  of  the  smaller  body. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  total  quantity  of  motion  is 
compounded  of  the  quantity  of  motion  dependent  upon 
the  number  of  force-centers  moved,  on  the  one  hand,  with 
the  quantity  of  motion  dependent  upon  velocity,  on  the 
other  hand. 

We  thus  arrive  at  the  definition  of  momentum,  as 
equal  to  the  product  of  the  mass  into  the  velocity.  In 
other  words,  momentum  is  merely  the  technical  term 
expressive  of  quantity  of  motion  in  this  compound 
sense.  And  this  the  usual  works  on  physics  declare  it 
to  be. 

Having,  then,  traced  the  conditions  determining  the 
quantity  of  motion  in  any  body,  we  have  next  to  follow 
the  actual  motion  and  ascertain  its  essential  phases.  And 
since,  at  the  outset,  any  change  in  the  motion  of  any 
given  body  must  take  place  in  the  direction  of  the  line 
in  which  the  impressed  force  acts,  the  motion  of  any  two 
bodies  attracting  each  other,  must  be  in  the  direction 


162  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

of  a  straight  line  connecting  them.  Each  body  must,, 
therefore,  move  or  "fall"  directly  toward  the  other, 
so  far  as  the  two  bodies  are  considered  merely  with 
reference  to  one  another. 

What  we  have  next  to  do,  then,  is  to  watch  the  devel- 
opment of  the  essential  phases  of  this  "  fall." 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

LAWS   OF   FALLING   BODIES. 

IT  has  already  been  shown  that  the  actual  quantity  of 
motion  of  two  bodies  approaching  each  other  in  con- 
sequence of  their  mutual  gravitation  must  be  the  same  in 
the  one  body  as  in  the  other,  no  matter  what  the  actual 
difference  in  their  masses  may  be.  We  have  already, 
therefore,  ascertained  the  fundamental  law  of  falling 
bodies;  so  that  what  follows  can  be  but  the  rendering 
explicit  of  what  is  already  implied  in  this  primary  law. 

Indeed,  there  has  already  become  explicit  this  much: 
That  mass  and  velocity  are  the  necessary  reciprocal  fac- 
tors of  the  total  quantity  of  motion  of  any  and  every 
body.  If,  therefore,  in  any  pair  of  bodies  gravitating 
toward  each  other,  the  one  has  twice  the  mass  of  the  other, 
it  will  at  any  given  moment  in  their  approach  toward 
each  other  have  acquired  but  half  the  velocity  of  that 
other,  and  at  the  end  of  any  given  time  will  have  passed 
through  but  half  the  distance  traversed  by  the  other 
body  in  the  same  time.  In  case  they  meet,  it  is  evident 
that  the  double  mass  will  have  traversed  one-third  the 
original  distance  of  separation,  while  the  smaller  mass  will 
have  traversed  the  remaining  two-thirds.  If  the  masses 
are'  to  each  other  as  one  to  one  thousand,  the  less  will 
approach  the  greater  with  a  velocity  a  thousand  fold  that 
with  which  the  greater  will  approach  the  less,  and  in  case 
they  continue  their  approach  undisturbed  until  they 


164  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

meet  the  greater  body  will  have  traversed  but  one 
thousandth  of  the  originally  intervening  space,  while 
the  remaining  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  thou- 
sandths will  have  been  traversed  by  the  smaller 
body. 

In  short,  the  greater  the  difference  between  the  masses 
of  the  two  bodies,  the  less  significant  relatively  becomes 
the  velocity  of  the  greater  body,  so  far  as  the  mere  ques- 
tion of  quantity  of  space  traversed  in  the  approach  be- 
tween the  two  is  concerned;  though  it  is  never  to  be 
forgotten  that  the  total  quantity  of  motion  of  the  one 
body  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  the  other,  and  that 
in  this  sense  the  "fall"  of  the  greater  body  toward  the 
less  is  exactly  equal  to  the  "fall"  of  the  less  toward  the 
greater. 

But,  let  us  repeat,  the  attractions  are  between  the 
ultimate  force-centers  and  between  them  alone.  Through 
the  same  distance,  therefore,  the  attraction  between  any 
two  such  force-centers  must  ever  be  the  same;  and  since 
the  total  quantity  of  motion  is  proportional  to  the  im- 
pressed force,  it  is  evident  that  any  two  force-centers 
must,  so  far  as  their  mutual  attraction  is  not  masked  by 
external  forces,  traverse  any  given  space  between  them  in 
precisely  the  same  time,  whether  they  act  singly  or  in 
groups.  For,  suppose  a  group  of  ten  particles  or  force- 
centers  on  one  side,  and  a  group  of  five  on  the  other. 
Each  of  the  ten  particles  in  the  one  group  will  attract 
and  be  attracted  by  each  of  the  five  particles  in  the  other 
group  precisely  in  the  same  way  and  precisely  with  the 
same  result  as  if  each  particle  on  either  side  were  com- 
pletely dissociated  from  the  other  particles  of  its  group. 
In  other  words,  the  fall  together  of  two  bodies  through 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  165 

any  given  space  will  take  place  in  precisely  the  same  time, 
whatever  the  masses  of  those  bodies  may  be. 

This  may  be  regarded  as  the  second  universal  law  of 
falling  bodies.  And  it  will  be  noticed  that  it  develops 
directly  from  the  second  law  of  motion. 

It  is  evidently  a  necessary  inference  from  this  that 
velocity,  properly  speaking,  is  the  rate  of  approach  of  two 
bodies  toward  each  other,  and  that  it  is  only  when  the 
mass  of  the  one  body  becomes  infinitesimal,  as  compared 
with  the  mass  of  the  other,  that  it  is  even  approximately 
correct  to  refer  the  velocity  solely  to  the  smaller  body. 

But,  again,  as  the  distance  between  the  approaching 
bodies  grows  less,  the  force  of  attraction  between  them 
becomes  greater.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  since  the 
force  not  only  acts  continuously,  but  also  with  continu- 
ously increasing  intensity,  the  increase  in  the  rate  of 
approach  of  any  two  bodies,  due  to  their  own  mutual 
attraction,  will  be  by  a  ratio  whose  value  must  constantly 
increase,  and  must  at  any  given  moment  be  equal  to  that 
which  would  have  resulted  from  the  action  of  a  constant 
force,  through  the  given  time,  compounded  with  that  pro- 
duced by  the  increased  action  of  the  force  for  the  same 
time. 

From  the  fundamental  conditions  of  motion,  it  appears 
then  that,  in  the^zrs^  place,  the  mutual  attraction  of  any 
two  bodies  results  in  each  acquiring  in  any  given  time 
precisely  the  same  quantity  of  motion  as  the  other, 
regardless  of  mass ;  secondly,  that  the  meeting  of  any 
two  bodies  through  any  given  distance,  in  consequence 
of  their  mutual  attraction,  will  take  place  in  precisely 
the  same  time,  regardless  of  mass,  though  the  portion  of 
the  total  distance  at  first  separating  them  traversed  by 


166  THE   WOBLD-EHEKGY 

either  body  will  be  inversely  as  its  relative  mass;  and,, 
thirdly,  that  the  velocity  or  ratio  of  approach  of  the  two 
bodies  toward  each  other  is  a  compound,  constantly 
increasing  ratio  which  is  wholly  independent  of  mass. 

These  are  the  fundamental  phases  of  the  motion  of 
bodies,  so  far  as  they  are  considered  merely  from  the  side 
of  their  mutual  attraction.  And  it  is  important  to  notice 
that  these  three  phases  of  motion  are  not  merely  three 
different  phases  of  relation  between  mass  and  velocity, — 
for  that  would  be  merely  to  substitute  one  term  for 
another, — but  also,  and  especially,  it  is  important  to 
notice  that  they  are  three  stages  in  the  progressive  suit- 
ordination  of  mass  as  a  factor  of  motion. 

And  this  serves  to  remind  us  again  that  mass  and 
velocity  are  reciprocal  factors  in  the  quantity  of  motion. 
It  is  the  "  inert "  mass  that  draws  to  itself  the  detached 
and  lightly  moving  force-sphere,  though  the  "inert 
mass  "  is  itself  made  up  of  precisely  similar  force-spheres. 
That  which  is  relatively  without  velocity  appears  to 
impart  velocity,  and  that  which  is  relatively  without 
mass  gains  increase  of  power  through  its  added  velocity. 

The  latter  statement  may  indeed  seem,  at  first  view, 
to  be  a  gratuitous  one,  so  far  as  the  course  of  our  argu- 
ment thus  far  can  give  justification.  But  we  have  only 
to  refer  to  the  first  law  of  motion  as  the  law  of  inertia  to 
see  that  the  justification  is  already  implicit  there.  A  body 
can  no  more  stop  its  own  motion  than  it  can  put  itself  in 
motion.  And  to  overcome  its  motion  requires  precisely 
the  same  amount  of  force  as  that  expended  in  giving  it 
the  motion  it  possesses.  The  quantity  of  motion  a  body 
possesses  is,  therefore,  an  exact  measure  at  once  of  the 
force  that  has  been  impressed  upon  it  in  giving  it  motion, 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  167 

and  of  the  force  that  would  be  required  to  bring  it  to 
rest. 

The  moving  body  itself,  then,  is  a  factor  which,  com- 
bined with  velocity,,  constitutes  a  realized  force ;  and  the 
greater  the  velocity  the  greater  the  force,  so  long  as  the 
mass  of  the  body  remains  unchanged. 

But,  again,  velocity  is  a  product,  the  formal  factors  of 
which  are  space  and  time.  In  other  words,  velocity  is 
the  unity  of  time  and  space  relations.  Evidently  also,  as 
a  factor  of  force,  velocity  has  greater  value  in  proportion 
as  the  time-element  is  diminished  and  the  space-element 
is  increased.  Thus  the  kinetic  energy  of  a  given  body  or 
mass  increases,  not  in  the  same  degree  as  the  velocity  of 
such  mass  increases,  but  in  a  ratio  corresponding  to  the 
square  of  the  velocity. 

Here,  then,  a  new  phase  of  force  develops,  the  force  of 
motion  itself.  For  momentum,  or  quantity  of  motion,  is 
the  product  of  mass  and  velocity,  and  a  moving  body  is 
nothing  else  than  a  certain  mass  possessing  a  certain 
velocity.  Motion,  therefore,  is  not  something  apart  from 
force.  It  is  just  force  itself  in  realized  form. 

Let  us  next  recall  the  fact,  already  developed,  that  the 
abstract  phases  of  attraction  and  repulsion  are  but  mere 
vague  pull  and  push  in  the  realm  of  "  matter."  And  let 
us  also  recall  the  further  fact  that  has  come  to  light  in 
the  course  of  our  inquiry:  that  it  could  be  only  through 
the  spontaneous  element  of  self-activity  necessarily  im- 
plied in  the  totality  of  the  World-Energy,  as  self-meas- 
ured, that  aggregations  of  force-centers  could  take  place 
at  all. 

Putting  these  two  facts  together,  it  is  evident  that  not 
only  is  motion  inevitable  as  a  state  of  all  bodies,  but  that 


168  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

all  such  motion  must  be  unified  into  a  perfectly  consistent 
system. 

In  the  aggregations  of  force-centers  into  masses,  then, 
we  see  the  same  tendency  as  that  which,  at  a  more 
advanced  stage,  cannot  fail  to  produce  still  larger  aggre- 
gations. Masses  attracting  one  another  must  move  toward 
one  another,  and  this  with  increasing  velocity,  both  from 
the  continuous  action  of  the  mutual  attraction  between 
them,  and  also  from  the  increasing  intensity  of  the  gravi- 
tative  pull,  as  the  distance  separating  them  diminishes. 

Thus  masses,  which  are  but  groups  of  force-centers, 
come  to  have  velocity  as  such.  And  this  combination  of 
masses  and  velocities  is  the  development  of  that  phase  of 
force  technically  known  as  "  molar  motion,"  and  which, 
regarded  simply  as  energy,  is  called  kinetic  energy. 

It  is  true  that,  in  popular  language,  motion  is  distin- 
guished from  bodies.  Thus  bodies  are  said  to  be  "in 
motion."  And  it  must  doubtless  be  something  of  a 
shock  to  the  ordinary  consciousness  to  be  assured  that 
bodies  are  "in  motion"  only  in  the  sense  that  they  are 
themselves  one  of  the  necessary  factors  of  motion.  And 
yet  this  is  universally  recognized,  at  least  in  words,  in  the 
treatises  dealing  with  this  subject. 

As  to  the  decrease  of  molar  motion,  and  the  special 
phase  of  energy  which  it  embodies,  this  is  effected  either 
gradually,  in  which  case  there  is  friction  or  compression ; 
or  suddenly,  in  which  case  there  is  .percussion.  But 
these  may  be  better  considered  in  connection  with  their 
effects  under  the  subject  of  heat. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  our  consideration  of  the  laws 
of  falling  bodies  has  confined  us  to  the  simplest  cases  of 
molar  motion.  We  have  abstracted  or  withdrawn  our 


AND   ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION.  169 

thought  from  all  action  of  force  save  that  between  two 
bodies  mutually  attracting  each  other. 

In  such  case,  the  resultant  motion  must,  of  course, 
be  literally  in  the  direction  of  the  straight  line  joining 
the  bodies ;  and  this  could  not  but  terminate  in  the 
meeting  and  fusion  of  the  two  bodies  unless  their 
inherent  elasticity  should  be  of  such  degree  as  to  cause 
their  rebound  from  one  another,  to  be  once  more  drawn 
together  and  again  rebound,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  recognition  of  the 
truth  of  the  universality  of  the  law  of  gravitation 
recalls  us  to  a  consciousness  of  the  very  abstract,  incom- 
plete, and  therefore,  thus  far,  untrue  representation 
which  we  have  as  yet  formed  of  the  actual  relation 
of  body  to  body  in  space. 

Nevertheless,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  we  have 
proceeded  consistently  with  the  second  law  of  motion  in 
finding  the  resultant  of  two  directions  of  the  action  of 
force.  So  that  the  representation  we  have  thus  far 
formed  is  doubtless  " untrue"  only  in  the  sense  of  being 
inadequate. 

What  remains  to  be  done,  then,  in  this  respect  is 
that  we  shall  proceed  to  the  further  step  of  finding 
the  resultant  of  a  third  direction  of  the  action  of  force 
with  the  resultant  already  obtained,  and  thus  gain  a 
clue  by  which  we  may  approach  the  conception  of 
something  like  a  complete  system  of  forces — the  system 
itself  being  in  perfect  equilibrium,  while  the  bodies 
comprised  in  the  system  are  in  ceaseless  motion. 

It  will  be  found,  too,  that  actual  motion  can  never 
be  in  a  straight  line,  but  rather  that  it  must  ever  be 
in  curved  directions.  It  is  to  the  consideration  of  such 
motion,  then,  that  the  next  chapter  will  be  devoted. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

CURVILINEAR    MOTION. 

SUPPOSE  three  equal  bodies  at  the  vertices  of  an 
equilateral  triangle.  Their  mutual  attraction  upon 
one  another  must  result  in  their  traveling  each  along 
a  straight  line,  to  a  point  within  the  triangle  equally 
distant  from  the  several  vertices.  Each,  without  moving 
directly  toward  either  of  the  others,  yet  moves  in  such 
direction  as  to  meet  them  both  by  the  shortest  line. 

If,  however,  we  take  a  more  complex  case,  we  shall 
have  a  very  different  result.  Even  three  unequal  bodies, 
and  the  more  if  not  symmetrically  grouped,  must  pre- 
sent a  wholly  new  set  of  relations.  So  intricate, 
indeed,  are  the  relations  thus  presented  that  "  the  prob- 
lem of  the  three  bodies  "  is  one  upon  which,  as  Whewell 
assures  us,  mathematicians  have  long  exercised  their 
highest  powers.* 

The  precise  quantitative  determinations  of  this  and 
other  complex  quantitative  problems  we  must,  indeed, 
leave  to  the  mathematicians.  All  that  will  be  neces- 
sary for  our  present  purpose  will  be  to  trace  the 
quantitative  characteristics  of  the  motion  arising  in 
such  case  as  that  which  is  actually  presented  in  the 
concrete  world.  And  for  the  sake  of  simplicity,  let 
us  assume  the  concrete  case  of  the  relations  existing 
between  the  earth,  the  sun  and  the  moon,  severally. 

*  "History  of  the  Inductive  Sciences,"  3d  (N.  Y.)  Ed.,  I.,  367. 
170 


AKD   ITS   SELF-COKSEEVATION".  171 

These  are  three  masses  gravitating  toward  each 
other.  Assume  the  present  distances  of  these  bodies 
severally  from  each  other.  Assume,  also,  that  the 
line  joining  the  earth  and  the  moon  is  approximately 
at  right  angles  with  that  joining  the  earth  and  the 
sun — assumptions  which,  on  the  nebular  hypothesis, 
are  entirely  justifiable. 

Upon  these  assumptions  we  have  to  ask :  What 
will  be  the  result  of  their  mutual  attractions? 

We  know,  from  what  has  already  preceded,  that 
each  will  approach  the  other;  that  the  earth  and  the 
sun  will  move  toward  each  other;  that  the  earth  and 
the  moon  will  move  toward  each  other;  and,  finally, 
that  the  moon  and  the  sun  will  move  toward  each 
other.  In  each  couple,  too,  it  is  evident  that  the 
quantity  of  motion  of  each  body  will  be  precisely 
equal  to  that  of  the  other  body.  But  the  body  having 
the  less  mass  will,  therefore,  necessarily  acquire  the 
greater  velocity.  Hence  the  sun,  as  vastly  the  greatest 
mass,  will  acquire  relatively  very  slight  velocity  as 
toward  either  the  earth  or  the  moon. 

Leaving  out  of  account,  then,  the  velocity  of  the 
sun,  as  a  quantity  relatively  so  small  that  it  may  be 
neglected  without  vitiating  the  result  qualitatively 
considered,  we  may  trace  the  motion  of  earth  and 
moon  toward  the  sun  and  toward  each  other. 

And  first,  let  us  note  that  the  distance  between 
the  earth  and  the  moon  is  so  small,  as  compared  with 
their  distance  from  the  sun,  that  the  intensity  of 
gravity,  as  between  them,  is  necessarily  correspondingly 
greater  than  that  between  either  of  them  and  the 
sun.  Whence  the  velocity  of  approach  between  earth 


172  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

and  moon  must  be  far  greater  than  the  velocity  of 
their  approach  toward  the  sun.  And  the  greatest 
velocity  of  all,  here  as  elsewhere,  must  belong  to  the 
body  having  least  mass. 

The  attractions  will  all  necessarily  be  exerted  along 
straight  lines.  For  gravitation,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
an  essential  property  of  the  bodies  themselves,  and  what- 
ever their  relative  positions,  it  is  necessarily  a  direct 
connection  of  the  one  with  the  other. 

We  may  remark,  by  the  way,  too,  that  this  (taken 
in  connection  with  what  has  already  been  said  con- 
cerning the  really  indefinite  extension  of  even  the 
smallest  "bodies")  is  a  simple  and  natural  explanation 
of  the  otherwise  mysterious  fact  that  gravity  "acts" 
instantaneously  through  immeasurable  distances.  Grav- 
ity is  not  itself  a  special  form  or  kind  of  matter;  nor  is 
it,  like  light  or  heat  or  electricity,  a  special  mode  of 
motion  requiring  time  for  its  propagation  through  space. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  there  always  and  everywhere  in  space 
as  itself  a  necessary  aspect  or  mode  of  "whatever  can 
occupy  space." 

The  movements,  nevertheless,  must  be  along  highly 
complex  curves.  For  both  earth  and  moon  approach  the 
sun  at  the  same  time  they  approach  each  other.  The 
earth  will  be  drawn,  by  the  moon's  attraction,  out  of  the 
straight  line  joining  its  original  position  with  the  sun. 
Meanwhile,  the  moon  itself,  as  possessing  relatively  so 
little  mass,  will  acquire  a  much  greater  velocity.  And 
the  direction  of  its  movement  will  be  toward  the  earth  in 
greater  degree  than  toward  the  sun.  At  the  same  time, 
the  earth,  as  possessing  so  little  mass  relatively  to  the  sun, 
will  acquire  a  velocity  mainly  in  the  direction  of  the  sun. 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSEKVATION.  173 

Thus  earth  and  moon  must  acquire  momentum  each  in 
a  curved  direction.  And  the  momentum  of  the  moon, 
consisting  in  so  large  a  degree  of  velocity,  will  carry  the 
moon  quite  over  so  as,  approximately,  to  reach  the  line 
originally  extending  between  earth  and  sun. 

Meanwhile  the  earth  must  have  moved  toward  the 
sun,  but  must,  also,  have  been  drawn  aside  from  a 
straight  line  joining  its  original  position  with  the  sun 
by  the  force  impressed  upon  it  by  the  moon's  mass. 
Whence  it  must  result  that  the  earth  will  speedily  reach 
a  point  exactly  between  sun  and  moon. 

Just  at  this  point,  so  far  as  the  attraction  between  earth 
and  moon  affects  the  earth,  it  will  tend  to  draw  the  earth 
away  from  the  sun;  or,  in  other  words,  it  will  tend  to 
diminish  the  earth's  velocity  toward  the  sun.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  moon  will  now  be  drawn  in  one  direc- 
tion by  the  combined  attraction  of  both  earth  and  sun. 
Hence,  its  velocity  must  be  increased  at  the  same  time 
that  it  rapidly  changes  the  direction  of  its  motion. 

Again,  the  acquired  momentum  of  the  earth  must 
carry  it  still  further  aside  from  the  original  line  joining 
it  with  the  sun;  so  that  by  the  time  the  moon  has  come 
to  follow  the  new  direction  of  the  impressed  forces,  the 
attraction  between  itself  and  the  earth  will  tend  to  carry 
it  again  beyond  the  earth  in  the  opposite  direction. 

But  now,  the  powerful  impulse  it  has  received  from 
the  combined  action  upon  it  of  earth  and  sun,  must 
not  only  carry  it  past  the  earth,  but  must  also  direct  its 
movement  along  a  path  lying  between  earth  and  sun. 
And  yet,  the  increased  intensity  of  gravitation  between 
earth  and  moon,  from  their  nearer  approach  must  result 
in  a  rapid  change  of  direction  in  the  moon's  motion,  and 


174  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

with  this  result;  that  the  moon  must  now  again  cross 
the  earth's  path,  but  this  time  in  advance  of  the  earth 
itself. 

Thus  the  moon  will  once  more  reach  a  position,  rela- 
tively to  the  other  bodies,  similar  to  that  in  which  we 
first  found  it. 

Evidently,  it  needs  but  to  pursue  this  series  of  move- 
ments— which  anyone  can  figure  to  himself  on  paper  if 
he  finds  it  difficult  to  follow  otherwise — to  see  that  in 
their  fall  toward  the  sun  the  earth  and  moon  must  inev- 
itably pursue  a  curved  direction  of  great  complexity,  and 
that  they  must  in  this  complex  movement  inevitably  fall 
past  the  sun. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  fall 
is  real.  There  is,  up  to  a  given  point,  constant  decrease 
in  distance  between  these  two  bodies  and  the  sun.  And 
that  point  will  inevitably  be  determined  by  the  rela- 
tion between  two  phases  of  force — the  centripetal  and 
the  centrifugal.  So  long  as  the  former  is  greater  than 
the  latter,  the  approach  will  continue.  The  moment 
the  latter  comes  to  predominate  over  the  former,  that 
moment  the  movement  toward  the  center  (sun)  will  be 
transformed  into  a  movement  away  from  the  center. 

What  constitutes  centrifugal  force?  The  answer  has 
in  reality  already  been  given.  The  mutual  attractions 
of  three  or  more  bodies  must  result  in  a  complex  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  each  body;  the  distances  passed  over 
by  the  several  bodies  being  inversely  proportional  to 
their  masses.  And  as  the  multiple  attractions  render 
impossible  the  direct  approach  of  any  one  body  toward 
any  other,  the  total  resultant  is  the  curvilinear  move- 
ment of  all. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  175 

But,  again,  as  we  have  seen,  a  mass  in  motion  pre- 
sents a  case  of  actual  energy — energy  of  motion.  And 
since  this  energy  of  motion  is  directed,  not  in  a  straight 
line  toward  the  center,  but  in  a  curved  line  about  the 
center,  it  is  evident  that  what  began  as  a  tendency 
toward  the  center  has  developed  into  a  tendency  away 
from  the  center.  It  is  this  latter  tendency  that  is 
properly  termed  centrifugal  force. 

And,  now,  let  us  note  that  the  nearer  the  smaller 
bodies  approach  the  central  one  the  greater  becomes  their 
velocity,  and,  hence,  the  greater  becomes  their  energy  of 
motion.  But  since  this  increasing  energy  of  motion  is 
directed  in  a  curve  about  the  center,  it  must  (the  bodies 
being  of  the  given  relative  mass)  attain  at  length  a 
degree  of  intensity  that  is  not  merely  sufficient  to  bal- 
ance the  tendency  toward  the  center,  but  which  will 
be  even  sufficient  to  overbalance  the  centripetal  ten- 
dency and  thus  actually  carry  the  lesser  masses  away 
from  the  center. 

At  the  same  time  the  gravitative  strain  or  tendency 
toward  the  center  is  a  continuously  impressed  force. 
And  at  the  maximum  point  reached  in  its  intensity 
(which  is,  of  course,  at  the  moment  of  nearest  approach 
of  the  bodies  to  the  center)  the  gravitative  strain  is  ade- 
quate to  overcome  the  heightened  degree  of  the  energy 
of  motion  (here  developed  as  centrifugal  force)  acquired 
by  the  revolving  bodies  so  far  as  to  cause  a  rapid  change 
in  the  direction  of  their  motion. 

Thus,  while  they  do  indeed  pass  the  center,  it  is  not 
until,  with  their  extreme  velocity,  they  have  passed  so  far 
around  it  as  to  make  a  swift  retrograde  movement  toward 
the  distant  point  from  which  their  fall  began.  Their  fall 


176  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

toward  the  sun  was  a  process  of  accumulating  energy 
by  which  they  were  able  to  resist  actually  falling  into 
the  central  body,  and  by  which  also  they  are  now  seen 
to  actually  "fall"  away  from  that  body. 

Centripetal  force  is  direct  attraction.  Centrifugal 
force  is  energy  of  motion,  due  to  attraction,  but  hav- 
ing a  tangential  direction,  this  tangential  direction 
itself  being  due  to  the  complexity  of  gravitative  rela- 
tion inherent  in  the  group  of  the  assumed  three 
bodies. 

It  ought  to  be  remarked,  finally,  that  the  movement 
away  from  the  central  body  on  the  part  of  the  smaller 
masses  necessarily  takes  place  in  opposition  to  the  attraction 
between  them  and  the  central  body.  Hence,  their  velocity 
must  now  diminish  until,  their  centrifugal  force  becoming 
less  than  the  force  of  attraction  between  them  and  the 
central  body,  they  gradually  return  upon  their  path  of 
approach  toward  the  central  body,  to  repeat  the  same 
round. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  too,  from  the  relations  of  force  here 
developed,  that  the  path  of  a  smaller  body  revolving 
about  a  larger  one  must  approximate  an  ellipse,  and  that, 
as  was  discovered  by  Kepler,  the  radius  vector  must 
describe  equal  areas  in  equal  times. 

Such,  it  seems  perfectly  safe  to  assume,  is  the  nature 
of  all  curvilinear  motion,  and  hence  of  all  motion  what- 
ever, throughout  space.  It  may  be  rendered  incalculably 
complex  by  multiple  attractions.  But  in  every  case  the 
perturbations  in  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
are  but  the  further  illustration  of  the  same  law  of  rela- 
tion necessarily  applying  as  between  all  the  force-centers 
of  the  material  universe,  as  has  been  repeatedly  and 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  177 

brilliantly  shown  in  the  course  of  the  development  of 
astronomical  science. 

Not  only  are  all  those  force-centers  related  one  to 
another,  but  a  number  of  them,,  grouped  together  with  a 
special  degree  of  intimacy,  constitute  a  complex  system 
through  their  own  mutual  relations.  The  many  are 
inevitably  resolved  into  the  one ;  or,  the  many  are  neces- 
sarily interrelated,  and  through  their  interrelation  they 
necessarily  constitute  one. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  evident  that  the  many 
moving  bodies  in  space,  with  all  the  phenomena  of  their 
existence,  constitute  but  the  manifold  outer  modes  of  the 
all-inclusive,  perfectly  self-balanced  and  self -active  World- 
Energy,  the  primal  one,  which  is  the  source  of  all  reality. 

We  have  traced,  in  brief,  the  essential  characteristics  of 
molar  motion.'  We  have  next  to  inquire  what  are  the 
fundamental  phases  of  molecular  motion. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

MOLECULAB  MOTION. 

OUR  inquiry  thus  far  leads  manifestly  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  all  motion,  whether  molar  or  molecular, 
must  necessarily  follow  the  same  laws.  Or,  more  pre- 
cisely, all  motion,  whether  molar  or  molecular,  is  ever 
the  manifestation  of  the  same  primal  relations  existing 
between  the  force-centers  of  the  real  world  in  space, 
whether  those  force-centers  be  considered  as  simple  or 
as  aggregated  into  more  or  less  extended  groups. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  already  seen  that,  along 
with  increased  complexity  of  grouping  of  force-centers, 
there  develops  also  increased  intensity  of  strain,  which 
further  results  in  the  bringing  into  realization  of  new  and 
richer  qualitative  characteristics. 

It  is  this  development  which  takes  place  more  especially 
in  the  sphere  of  molecular  motion. 

The  grouping  itself,  indeed,  is  due  to  the  mutual 
attractions  between  the  simplest  force-centers ;  so  that  all 
attraction  may  be  regarded  as  ultimately  atomic.  But 
the  more  closely  these  centers  are  gathered,  the  more 
intense  becomes  the  strain  between  them.  That  is,  the 
more  strongly  does  the  mutual  attraction  between  any 
two  centers  oppose  the  realization  of  the  qualitative 
result  that  would  otherwise  naturally  follow  from  the 
attraction  between  either  of  these  two  and  any  other 
center. 

178 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  179 

Thus,  the  force-centers  of  a  given  group  come  to 
acquire  more  and  more  rigid  relations,  one  with  an- 
other, until  they  at  length  take  on  a  definite  form, 
and  offer  greater  or  less  resistance  to  any  and  all 
forces  tending  to  change  that  form.  That  is,  what 
primarily  is  but  lax  gravitative  energy,  becomes  more 
and  more  intense,  until  at  length  it  develops  into  cohe- 
sive force. 

But  now,  when  there  comes  to  be  applied  to  such  rigid 
aggregate  of  force-centers  another  group  of  force-rela- 
tions sufficient  to  overcome  its  cohesion,  then  the  molec- 
ular strain  is  developed  to  a  correspondingly  high  degree. 
But  whether  the  applied  force  bears  the  character  of 
compression,  or  of  percussion,  it  is  in  either  case  due  to, 
or  is  a  form  of,  gravitative  energy  or  attraction.  And  if 
the  application  takes  place  suddenly — that  is,  if  the  quan- 
tity of  force  in  action  be  mainly  intensive — then  the 
motion  imparted  to  the  molecules  of  the  given  body  will 
be  so  great  that  their  impact  upon  one  another  must  have 
the  effect  to  widen  the  distances  between  them  in  greater 
or  less  degree,  and  thus  to  correspondingly  increase  the 
volume  of  the  groups  as  a  whole. 

The  result  of  the  attraction,  then,  in  such  case,  is, 
first,  percussion  of  one  body  against  another,  and  through 
this  the  sudden  enhancement  of  the  motion  of  the  force- 
centers  constituting  the  bodies,  so  that  the  bodies  them- 
selves increase  in  volume  through  the  energy  thus 
imparted  to  their  molecules.  That  is,  molar  motion, 
due  to  gravity,  results  in  percussion  of  the  moving 
bodies,  which  in  turn  gives  rise  to  molecular  motion,  and 
this  again  results  in  increased  intensity  of  percussion  of 
molecules,  causing  the  expansion  of  the  bodies. 


180  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

A  phase  of  force  drawing  bodies  together  is  thus  seen 
to  develop  into  a  phase  of  force  driving  the  constituent 
portions  of  those  bodies  asunder.  Nay,  the  bodies  them- 
selves, so  far  as  they  are  elastic,  rebound;  and  the  expan- 
sion of  the  body  as  a  whole  is  but  the  increased  intensity 
of  rebound  of  the  molecules  of  the  body,  estimated  in 
the  increased  extension  or  volume  of  the  body  as  a  whole. 

But  whether  the  impact  and  rebound  be  between  large 
bodies  (moles),  or  between  small  bodies  (molecules),  in 
either  case  precisely  the  same  principle  applies ;  and  the 
thing  to  especially  notice  just  at  this  point  is  that  the 
manifestation  of  force  is  perpetually  dual.  Concentra- 
tion, we  are  accustomed  to  say,  is  due  to  attraction,  while 
expansion  is  due  to  repulsion.  But  we  must  repeat  that, 
as  here  shown  in  brief,  and  as  proven  more  extendedly  in 
preceding  chapters,  the  tendency  toward  concentration 
itself  involves  the  tendency  toward  expansion,  just  as  the 
tendency  toward  expansion  involves  the  tendency  toward 
concentration.  Attraction  and  repulsion  are  reciprocal 
phases  of  every  manifestation  of  force ;  and  their  interre- 
lation, as  exhibited  in  the  particles  of  any  given  mass, 
great  or  small,  is  precisely  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call 
the  " elasticity"  of  that  mass.  That  is,  elasticity  is  a 
molecular  property  of  bodies ;  and  it  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  this  property  is  nothing  else  than  an  essential 
relation  or  interplay  between  attraction  and  repulsion,  as 
the  two  necessary,  and  mutually  inclusive,  properties  of 
all  matter. 

Finally,  since  the  same  principles  determine  motion, 
whether  molar  or  molecular — the  difference  between 
these  two  classes  of  motion  being,  as  just  seen,  arbi- 
trarily assumed  rather  than  actually  existent — and,  since 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  181 

motion  may  be  imparted  or  transferred  from  one  body 
to  another,  the  balance  between  attraction  and  repulsion 
within  any  given  quantity  of  matter  must  be  constantly 
undergoing  change,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  volume 
of  any  and  every  body  must  as  constantly  undergo 
variation. 

Let  us  trace,  briefly,  some  of  the  consequences  of 
this  evident  fact  of  the  interrelation  between  attraction 
and  repulsion.  And,  first,  let  us  note  the  special  char- 
acteristics of 

a. — HEAT. 

That  phase  of  molecular  motion  specially  manifest  in 
the  expansion  of  bodies,  is  now  named  Heat.  It  is 
affirmed  as  a  general  law  in  physics  that  heat  expands 
all  bodies.  That  is,  heat  is  declared  to  be  a  mode  of 
repulsion.  Thus,  the  degree  of  expansion  which  a  given 
volume  of  a  selected  substance  undergoes,  serves  as  the 
measure  of  intensity  of  heat. 

In  reality  the  expansion  is  a  measure  of  the  increase 
of  one  phase  of  force,  as  compared  with  another,  in  a 
given  quantity  of  matter.  So  that  heat,  as  measured  by 
a  thermometer,  may  be  said  to  be  the  varying  degrees 
in  the  intensity  of  repulsion  relatively  to  attraction; 
just  as  weight,  far  from  being  identical  with  gravity,  is 
in  reality  the  measure  of  the  excess  of  centripetal  over 
centrifugal  force. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  "exceptions" 
to  the  law  that  heat  expands  all  bodies,  are  found  to  be 
no  exceptions.  They  are,  in  fact,  due  to  crystallization. 
We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  that  the  com- 
plexity of  grouping  of  particles  follows  upon  the  com- 


182  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

plexity  of  relation  between  attraction  and  repulsion. 
To  this  it  is  now  to  be  added  that  the  grouping 
of  particles  known  as  crystallization,  takes  place  for 
each  of  the  crystallizable  substances  at  a  single  defi- 
nitely fixed  temperature  of  the  substance,  provided 
always  that  the  pressure  is  the  same.  That  is,  for  every 
crystallizable  substance,  the  process  of  crystallization 
can  take  place,  only  upon  the  establishment  of  a  defi- 
nite fixed  relation  between  attraction  and  repulsion 
within  the  substance.  With  any  excess  of  repulsion 
above  that  point,  the  crystals  dissolve  if  already 
formed,  or  refuse  to  form  if  the  substance  is  in  the 
liquid  state. 

Crystallization,  then,  is  a  special  phase  of  the  solid- 
ification of  bodies,  a  process  which  takes  place  only  upon 
the  reduction  of  the  repulsion  between  their  particles  to 
such  degree  as  to  leave  the  attraction  predominant,  and 
thus  allow  the  particles  to  cohere  in  fixed  relations. 
These  fixed  relations  again  constitute  a  tendency  to 
break  up  a  larger  mass  into  a  multitude  of  smaller 
masses.  Within  the  larger  mass  certain  groups  of  par- 
ticles combine  into  relatively  small  masses  of  perfectly 
definite  shape;  the  shape  being  fixed  for  each  particular 
kind  of  crystallizable  matter.  Thus  the  larger  mass  is 
differentiated  into  a  multitude  of  smaller  masses,  which 
yet  cohere  in  irregular  groupings,  leaving  unoccupied 
spaces  between  them,  and  thus  thrusting  the  boundaries 
of  the  entire  mass  outward  on  all  sides.  Thus,  while 
the  matter  in  cooling  to  or  below  the  point  of  crystal- 
lization becomes  more  dense,  and  really  occupies  less 
space,  yet  the  bulk  of  the  entire  mass  is  increased;  or, 
in  crystallizing,  the  body  "  expands,"  but  without  really 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  183 

contradicting  the  law  that  loss  of  heat  is  accompanied 
by  loss  of  actual  volume. 

Another  point  of  interest  to  be  noticed  in  this  con- 
nection, is  found  in  the  discussions  of  physicists  con- 
cerning the  " absolute  zero."  Calculation  once  made  of 
the  loss  of  volume  for  each  degree  of  reduction  of  tem- 
perature in  a  given  mass  of  air,  it  is  easy  to  determine 
the  absolute  zero  point,  on  the  presumption  that  the 
ratio  of  loss  of  volume  to  each  degree  of  diminishing 
temperature  will  continue  unchanged. 

Of  course  this  ratio  would  not  remain  unchanged. 
But  the  point  of  interest  for  us  here  is  the  fact  that  theo- 
retically the  absolute  zero  of  temperature  falls  precisely 
where  the  given  quantity  of  matter  has  also  reached  the 
zero  of  volume.  That  is,  as  was  intimated  on  a  former 
page,  where  there  is  absolute  zero  of  temperature,  there 
is  absolute  non-existence  of  matter.  And,  indeed,  one 
might  naturally  enough  infer  that  since  "  heat"  is  a  state 
or  phase  of  "matter,"  there  can  be  complete  absence  of 
heat  only  where  there  is  complete  absence  of  matter. 

It  may  also  be  remarked,  that  so  far  as  this  specu- 
lation of  the  scientists  is  of  any  real  value,  it  serves  to 
confirm  our  previously  attained  conclusion,  that  repul- 
sion— of  which  heat  is  merely  a  mode — is  an  absolutely 
essential  phase  of  matter.  This,  indeed,  is  the  real 
meaning  of  that  other  speculation  to  the  effect  that  if 
the  action  of  gravity  were  wholly  unchecked,  it  would 
reduce  the  material  universe  to  a  mathematical  point. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  already  seen,  gravitation 
itself  would  be  impossible  apart  from  repulsion,  as  its 
opposing  or  complementary  mode  of  force.  Or,  as 
previously  shown,  the  very  action  of  gravity  must,  of 


184  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

necessity,  develop  within  itself  the  opposite  mode  of 
force.  Whence  it  may  be  said  that,  though  we  may  in 
a  certain  degree  imagine  the  action  of  gravity  apart 
from  repulsion,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  such 
action  in  the  sense  of  thinking  it. 

There  is,  besides,  no  little  significance  for  our  present 
purpose  in  the  fact  that,  in  modern  science,  heat  is 
treated  throughout  as  exclusively  a  mode  of  repulsion. 
The  entire  discussion  of  the  subject  proceeds  upon,  and 
is  but  a  development  of,  the  proposition  that  "heat 
expands  all  bodies."  The  chief  topics  regarding  the 
action  of  heat  are:  Expansion;  change  of  state;  rela- 
tion between  tension  and  density  of  vapors. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  distribution  of  heat,  it  need 
only  be  said  that  conduction  of  heat  is  simply  the  pro- 
gressive transfer  of  the  energy  of  motion  from  particle  to 
particle  in  a  series;  while  convection  begins  in  conduction, 
which,  in  turn,  brings  about  a  difference  in  specific  grav- 
ity in  the  fluid  medium,  the  result  being  currents  con- 
veying the  energy  of  motion  (whence  convection  currents) 
and  distributing  that  energy  by  contact — that  is,  by 
conduction  again.  So,  also,  radiation  itself  appears  to 
be  but  a  modified  form  of  conduction,  and  the  more 
when  we  recognize  that  all  "bodies"  are  in  reality 
indefinitely  extended,  and,  hence,  mutually  inclusive. 

But  let  us  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  another 
mode  of  molecular  energy,  which  is  also  intimately 
related  to  heat. 

b. — CHEMICAL   ACTION. 

We  have  already  noticed  that  molecular  combination 
depends  upon  the  varying  degrees  of  relation  between 


AND   ITS   SELF-COKSERVATION".  185 

attraction  and  repulsion.  We  have  just  seen  that  crys- 
tallization depends  upon  a  definite  fixed  relation  between 
these  two  modes  of  energy  for  each  particular  substance; 
and  in  former  pages  reasons  were  shown  for  concluding 
that  the  chemical  elements  themselves  must  have  had 
their  origin  in  the  cumulative  strain  incident  to  the 
gradual  radiation  of  heat  from  a  given  diffuse,  gaseous 
mass,  the  mass  gradually  condensing  into  the  solid  state 
through  the  constant  action  of  gravity;  this  phase  of 
force  itself,  indeed,  becoming  more  and  more  intense 
the  farther  the  condensation  advanced. 

Modern  chemistry  itself  points  definitely  and  em- 
phatically in  the  same  direction.  All  chemical  com- 
pounds are  separable  into  their  elements  through  the 
action  of  heat.  Chemical  combination  is  the  result 
of  attraction,  here  named  "affinity/-  while  heat  is 
a  mode  of  repulsion.  Above  a  certain  degree  of  in- 
tensity, therefore,  heat  must  serve  as  an  absolute 
bar  to  the  formation  of  any  known  chemical  com- 
pound. 

As  far  as  observation  goes,  then,  the  qualitative  differ- 
ences of  matter  are  -seen  to  be  completely  dependent 
upon  the  relation  between  the  intensive  and  the  exten- 
sive phases  of  energy  in  a  given  realm.  Quality  is,  in 
truth,  the  intensive  phase  of  matter  developed  through  a 
preponderance  of  the  intensive  phase  of  energy.  That 
is,  it  is  a  perfectly  logical  inference  from  the  principle 
thus  far  developed  that  the  so-called  chemical  elements 
are  themselves  simply  so  many  phases  of  matter  that 
have  been  differentiated  from  a  practically  homogeneous, 
nebulous  mass,  through  the  gradual  transition  of  the 
total  quantity  of  energy  immediately  constituting  that 


186  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

mass  from  a  predominantly  extensive  to  a  predominantly 
intensive  phase. 

The  same  laws,  then,  must  hold  in  chemistry  as  in 
physics.  And  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the  latest 
researches  in  chemical  science  tend  to  verify  this  con- 
clusion also.  Nay,  at  least  one  work — Berthelot's  re- 
markable and  extended  treatise,  entitled,  "  Essai  de 
Mecanique  Chimique" — is  devoted  to  the  presentation 
of  the  evidences  tending  to  establish  the  identity  of 
chemical  forces  with  the  other  natural  forces.* 

But  the  general  action  of  these  phases  of  energy 
cannot  fail  to  develop  specialized,  local  strains  within 
the  mass  of  matter  thus  undergoing  reduction  in  spacial 
extent,  on  the  one  hand,  and  differentiation  of  quali- 
tative content  on  the  other.  And  it  is  evident  that 
the  investigation  of  these  specialized  local  strains  must 
result  in  the  development  of  a  new  branch  or  branches 
of  science. 

Historically,  indeed,  such  investigation  has  resulted 
in  the  development  of  two  distinct  branches  of  purely 
physical  science;  the  one  being  chemistry  itself,  the 
other  being  electricity.  And  it  is  especially  worthy  of 
notice  that  both  the  phases  of  energy,  whose  special  modes 
are  traced  in  these  two  sciences,  are  most  intimately 
related  to  the  still  more  complex  modes  of  energy  mani- 
fested in  life. 

It  is  to  a  brief  consideration  of  the  central  charac- 
teristics of  electricity  that  we  have  now  to  turn. 

*In  his  conclusion  he  says:  "Ainsi,  les  Energies  chimiques  se  trouvent 
nettement  caract6ris<5es  et  raises  en  opposition  avec  les  autres  Energies  natu- 
relles:  les  unes  et  les  autres  obt-issent  6galemeut  aux  lois  de  la  me'canique 
rationelle."  II.,  754. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  187 

C. — ELECTEICITY   AND   MAGNETISM. 

In  crystallization,  the  molecules  of  certain  kinds  of 
matter  are  seen,  under  favoring  conditions  of  relation 
between  attraction  and  repulsion,  to  undergo  arrange- 
ment, so  as  to  constitute  definite  geometrical  solids. 
These  solid  forms  possess,  too,  in  most  cases,  a  relatively 
stable  equilibrium. 

Another  class  of  strains,  however,  is  induced  by  the 
sudden  cooling  of  a  mass  of  molten  matter — for  example, 
glass  or  iron — to  the  solid  state.  The  Prince  Eupert 
drop  is  a  well-known  and  striking  example  of  extremely 
unstable  equilibrium,  produced  by  the  sudden  chilling 
of  a  small  mass  of  molten  glass,  so  that  the  surface 
becomes  solid,  while  the  interior  is  still  in  a  more  or 
less  liquid  or  viscous  state.  When  the  whole  has  become 
solid,  the  interior  and  exterior  strains  are  imperfectly 
balanced,  the  density  of  the  central  part  being  less  than 
that  of  the  outer,  since  an  outer  rigid  shell  was  formed 
over  an  inner  nucleus  that  was  still  molten,  and  which, 
in  its  solidification,  has  tended  to  shrink  away  from  the 
outer  rigid  shell.  Hence,  the  slightest  break  in  the 
exterior  portion  at  once  makes  way  for  the  complete 
disruption  of  the  entire  mass. 

It  is  well  known,  also,  that  cast  car-wheels  and  edge- 
tools,  when  chilled  rapidly,  possess  the  same  peculiar 
characteristic  of  "brittleness."  And  this,  it  can  scarcely 
be  doubted,  is  due  in  reality  to  the  unequally  distributed 
strain  characterizing  the  Prince  Rupert's  drop,  rather 
than  to  the  additional  "hardness"  produced  by  the 
sudden  cooling;  for,  in  truth,  the  "hardness"  must,  by 
the  very  conditions  of  rapid  cooling,  be  confined  mainly 
to  the  superficial  portions  of  the  chilled  mass. 


188  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

We  have  now  to  remark  that  electrification  would 
seem  to  be  a  similar  case  of  unstable  molecular  equi- 
librium in  this  far:  that  it  is  found  to  be  a  special 
molecular  condition,  which  very  few  kinds  of  matter 
will  retain  during  any  at  all  extended  portion  of 
time.  The  evanescent  character  of  electric  disturbance, 
too,  is,  when  considered  in  connection  with  the  Prince 
Rupert's  drop,  confirmatory  of  the  usual  statement  of 
physicists  that  such  disturbance  is  confined  to  the 
superficial  portions  of  the  electrified  bodies. 

It  is  only  when  the  disturbance  penetrates  through 
the  entire  mass  that  it  assumes  a  relatively  perma- 
nent character ;  and  then  the  electrified  body  becomes 
a  "magnet."  In  confirmation  of  this,  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  do  more  than  refer  to  the  beautiful  exper- 
iments with  the  solenoid,  by  which  a  current  of  elec- 
tricity is  shown  to  possess  all  the  essential  properties 
of  a  magnet. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  too,  that  a  bar  of  iron 
resting  within  the  solenoid  while  a  current  of  elec- 
tricity passes  through  it,  becomes  a  temporary  magnet, 
while  a  steel  bar,  under  like  conditions,  becomes  a 
"permanent"  magnet.  And  this,  too,  has  its  impor- 
tant suggestion.  For  steel  is  simply  a  more  dense 
state  of  iron.  That  is,  relatively  to  steel,  iron  is 
"soft,"  or  fluid.  The  attraction  between  particle  and 
particle  is  less  intense.  The  relation  between  parti- 
cle and  particle  is  less  rigid.  The  relation  between 
particle  and  particle  in  steel,  then,  is  less  easily  dis- 
turbed. Hence,  when  a  new  relation  is  established, 
it  tends,  in  its  turn,  to  persist.  And  this  is  especially 
the  case  when  the  new  relation'  between  particle  and 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  189 

particle  becomes,  in  a  measure,  organic,  or,  as  it  is 
usually  expressed,  "  polarized." 

Thus  electricity  (and,  therefore,  magnetism)  consists 
of  a  special,  local  molecular  strain,  opposing  the  ordi- 
nary cohesion  of  particles.  It  may,  too,  become  suf- 
ficiently intense  to  quite  overcome  the  cohesion,  and 
thus  to  fuse,  or  even  vaporize,  a  solid  mass.  It 
thus  performs  the  same  office  as  heat — is,  indeed,  in 
such  case,  said  to  be  transmuted  into  heat.  And 
not  only  so,  but,  just  as  heat  is  a  mode  of  molec- 
ular motion,  transferable  from  one  portion  of  matter 
to  another,  so  electricity  is  also  only  a  varied  mode 
of  molecular  motion,  capable  of  transmission. 

If,  indeed,  we  take  into  account  the  relations  involved 
in  its  development,  it  becomes  evident  that,  in  reality, 
electricity  cannot  but  be  in  perpetual  process  of  devel- 
opment and  transmission  into  other  phases  of  force 
wherever  there  is  matter.  True,  it  is  not  merely  or 
mainly  a  phase  of  molecular  repulsion,  like  heat ;  nor 
of  molecular  attraction,  like  chemical  affinity.  On 
the  contrary  it  constantly  exhibits  both  these  phases 
of  energy  in  its  activity,  and  is  thus  a  specially  com- 
plex phase  of  molecular  energy. 

Electricity  is,  indeed,  described  as  of  two  kinds — 
" statical "  and  "dynamical."  The  former  is  said  to 
be  developed  by  friction,  the  latter  by  chemical  action. 
But  friction  involves  adhesion,  which  is  an  approach 
to  molecular  attraction ;  while  chemical  action  is  a 
separation  and  recombining  of  "atoms,"  in  which 
there  is  necessarily  involved  molecular  friction.  Here, 
again,  then,  we  find  ourselves  face  to  face  with  the 
identity  in  kind  of  molecular  and  mechanical  energy, 


190  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

while  the  two  "kinds"  of  electricity  are  seen  to  be  but 
two  phases   or  degrees   of  one  and  the   same   kind. 

But  we  have  further  to  note  that  all  strains  pro- 
ducing flexure  or  compression — in  short,  any  change 
whatever,  whether  "mechanical"  or  " chemical,,"  in 
the  configuration,  or  volume,  or  state,  of  any  given 
mass  of  matter — must  be  attended  with  a  greater  or 
less  degree  of  molecular  friction,  resulting  in  "elec- 
trification," as  well  as  in  change  of  temperature.  In 
short,  electricity  is  evidently  a  phase  of  all  matter, 
and  a  phase  no  less  essential  than  is  heat  or  gravita- 
tion. 

At  the  same  time,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that 
in  still  another  way  the  complexity  of  electric  energy 
is  evident.  For  in  its  manifestations  there  are  ever 
found  to  be  two  phases  possessing  opposite  character- 
istics, and  to  which  are  given  the  designations  respect- 
ively of  "positive"  and  "negative."  It  is  to  be 
observed,  however,  that  the  law  which  these  mani- 
festations are  found  to  follow  brings  out  a  peculiar 
result.  The  law  is  that  "like  electricities  repel  and 
unlike  electricities  attract."  But  this  can,  in  reality, 
mean  nothing  else  than  that  positive  electricity  is 
negative  toward  positive,  and  positive  toward  negative 
electricity ;  while  negative  electricity  is  positive  toward 
positive,  and  negative  toward  negative. 

And  not  only  so,  but  the  designation  of  the  one 
rather  than  the  other  as  positive  is  found  to  be 
purely  arbitrary.  Either  is  equally  positive  and  equally 
negative.  Each  is  therefore  both  positive  and  negative. 

This  is  a  specially  significant  phase  of  relation  in 
force,  to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  return. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  191 

Finally,  we  must  not  fail  to  note,,  further,  that 
electricity  not  only  exhibits  this  two-fold  character  as 
electricity,  but  that  its  activity  constantly  develops 
into  both  heat  and  chemical  change,  just  as,  on  the 
contrary,  both  heat  and  chemical  change  are  accom- 
panied by  electrical  excitation. 

In  an  important  sense,  then,  electricity  may  be 
regarded  as  the  higher  unity  in  which  heat  and  chem- 
ical action  —  molecular  repulsion  and  molecular  (or 
"atomic")  attraction — combine,  the  result  being,  in- 
deed, a  state  of  very  unstable  equilibrium.  And  this 
corresponds  to  the  general  law  in  nature  that  the 
more  complex  the  physical  unit  the  more  is  it  sus- 
ceptible to  dissolution. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  up  to  this  point,  in 
dealing  with  "molecular  motion,"  we  have  had  to 
do  with  facts  that  belong  definitely  to  the  external 
or  physical  world.  We  come  now  to  consider  those 
phases  of  molecular  motion  which  are  very  closely 
intermingled  with  factors  pertaining  to  the  inner 
world  of  mind.  This  fact  gives  to  the  study  of  those 
phases  a  special  interest  at  the  same  time  that  it 
adds  greatly  to  the  possibility  of  error  in  the  re- 
sults. 

The  special  phases  referred  to  are 

d. — LIGHT  AND   SOUND. 

As  a  physical  fact,  strictly  considered,  light  is  insep- 
arable from  radiant  heat.  And  radiant  heat  is  predomi- 
nantly repulsion — a  central  throbbing  that  communicates 
motion  outward  radially  to  and  through  the  surrounding 
medium. 


192  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

Nevertheless,  this  transmission  of  motion  from  the 
center  outward  by  means  of  vibrations  in  a  medium 
involves  something  more  than  mere  outward  impulse. 
Both  center  and  medium  must  be  highly  elastic  if  any 
movement  is  to  be  actually  transmitted.  For  the  out- 
ward thrust  of  every  single  particle  from  the  center  of 
radiation  already,  and  necessarily,  involves  a  tension 
which  can  exist  only  through  the  inseparable  union  of 
attraction  and  repulsion. 

The  vibration,  besides,  is  not  merely  an  outward 
thrust,  but  is  also  and  equally  a  rebound.  In  other 
words,  vibrations  can  take  place  only  in  an  elastic 
medium.  And  elasticity  is  nothing  else  than  the  inter- 
fusion of  molecular  attraction  and  repulsion.  Thus  the 
undulatory  theory  of  heat,  light  and  electricity,  only 
brings  into  greater  clearness  the  extreme  simplicity  of 
the  physical  world. 

So,  too,  this  simplicity  of  the  physical  world  becomes 
still  more  impressive  when  we  further  consider  the 
familiar  fact,  that  like  light,  sound  too,  as  an  outer 
physical  fact,  is  nothing  else  than  vibratory  motion  in  an 
elastic  medium.  It  would  indeed  be  only  to  repeat  what 
has  been  said  of  the  former,  were  we  to  state  the  funda- 
mental characteristics  of  the  latter. 

There  are,  of  course,  important  qualitative  differences 
in  the  media,  as  well  as  quantitative  differences  in  the 
vibrations  which  take  place  in  these  media.  No  doubt, 
too,  that  the  complexity  of  grouping  of  the  particles 
incident  to  the  vibrations,  in  the  one  case,  is  greater 
than  in  the  other.  But,  after  all  has  been  said,  the  fun- 
damental fact  remains  that  sound  and  light,  considered 
simply  as  physical  facts  apart  from  their  effects  in 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  193 

sensation,  are  alike  modes  of  vibratory  motion  and  noth- 
ing more. 

In  truth,  what  we  commonly  call  "light"  and 
"sound"  are  subjective  creations  of  our  own,  which  we 
spontaneously  attribute  to  the  physical  world  as  if  they 
pertained  to  that  world  and  were  among  its  inherent 
properties. 

It  is  necessary  to  reflect  quite  deliberately  upon  the 
subject  before  one  is  able  to  form  to  himself  a  clear  and 
even  approximately  adequate  conception  of  the  extent 
to  which  he  is  himself  the  creator  of  the  world  in  the 
midst  of  which  he  lives.  He  must  first  become  thor- 
oughly conscious  of  the  infinite  variety  that  is  given 
to  the  "external"  world  by  color  and  sound,  taste  and 
smell.  He  must  then  dwell  upon,  until  he  realizes  the 
full  force  of,  the  proofs  that  these  have  absolutely  no 
existence  save  in  sensation.  Then,  and  only  then,  can 
he  adequately  appreciate  the  barrenness  and  utter  pov- 
erty of  the  merely  physical  world.  Then,  and  only 
then,  can  he  rightly  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  world 
in  space,  apart  from  those  "attributes"  which  in  no 
wise  belong  to  it,  but  which  are  literally  given  it  by  the 
contemplating  mind,  is  in  reality  nothing  more  than  the 
balancing  of  complementary  phases  of  energy  developing 
into  "material,"  but  constantly  changing  forms,  char- 
acterized chiefly  by  their  mutual  exclusion — their  pure 
externality. 

That,  in  truth,  is  all  that  is  real  of  the  "  outer  world." 
Elasticity — the  interfusion  of  attraction  and  repulsion  in 
varying  degrees,  resulting  in  perpetual  vibration,  in  per- 
petually recurring  condensations  and  rarefactions — here, 
indeed,  is  the  essence  of  the  external  conditions  of  sensa- 


194  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

• 

tioii;  but  this  is  far  from  constituting  the  internal  fact  of 
sensation.  This  internal  fact  of  sensation  is  an  act  of  the 
mind.  The  stimulus  leading  to  this  act  is  found  in  the 
outer  vibrations;  but  the  act  of  sensation,  together  with 
its  product,  known  as  an  "image/'  these  are  inner,  sub- 
jective facts.  Even  the  "  image,"  involving  all  there  is 
of  color,  or  of  sound,  or  of  odor,  or  of  flavor,  is  not  a 
possession  of  the  mind,  as  something  separate  or  separa- 
ble from  the  mind.  Rather,  it  is  itself  a  state  of  the 
mind,  a  factor  inwoven  with  the  very  existence  of  the 
mind. 

That  color,  and  sound,  and  odor,  and  flavor  are 
purely  subjective  is,  indeed,  a  fact  recognized  and 
acknowledged  as  a  matter  of  course,  even  by  the  most 
thorough-going  empiricists. 

And  now,  all  this  being  the  case,  it  serves  to  suggest 
the  possibility  that  even  that  portion  of  the  outer  world 
which  we  must  still  regard  as  quite  external  to  and 
independent  of  us,  is  still  itself  nothing  else  than  the 
outer  manifestation  of  the  inner,  spontaneous  energy 
of  a  higher,  and,  indeed,  highest,  consciousness.  This 
would  doubtless  prove  to  be  the  most  adequate  term  of 
the  world,  a  term  infinitely  concrete,  the  vital  principle 
of  all  things. 

But  so  far  as  the  present  argument  extends,  this 
must  as  yet  be  regarded  as  conjectural.  What  has  de- 
veloped all  along,  what  the  most  recent  developments 
of  physical  science  point  to  with  special  clearness  and 
emphasis,  is  the  conception  that  the  world  in  space 
is  a  sum-total  of  energy ;  that  everywhere  there  is 
indestructible  unity  of  relation ;  that  the  total  complex 
of  relations  extends  infinitely  in  all  directions,  and 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  195 

thus  that  the  sum-total  of  energy  is  an  indivisible, 
self-balanced  whole.  Even  the  modes  of  molecular 
motion  are  seen  to  be  nothing  else  than  the  various 
phases  of  the  manifestations  whose  essence  is  the 
infinitely  varied  inter-play  of  attraction  and  repulsion 
as  the  primary  and  necessarily  complementary  phases 
of  the  one  all-pervading  and  all-constituting  energy. 
And  now  that  we  have  come  to  recognize  the  identity 
in  nature  of  all  the.  phenomena  of  the  outer  world, 
and  have  found  the  theory  to  be  entirely  reasonable 
that  all  these  phenomena  are  due  to  the  varying 
degrees  of  complexity  of  the  activity  of  the  one  primal 
energy,  we  may  next  proceed  to  inquire  more  pre- 
cisely what  are  the  necessary  implications  as  to  the 
essential,  innermost  property  of  this  one  primal  energy. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 


CORRELATION    OF    FORCES    AND    CONSERVATION 
OF    ENERGY. 


doctrine  of  correlation  of  forces,  now  so  gen- 
erally  known  and  accepted,  will  require  but  brief 
reference  in  this  place.  And  so  much  the  less  need  it  be 
here  dwelt  upon,  as  the  whole  course  of  our  argument 
thus  far  has  been  chiefly  a  statement  of  that  doctrine  in 
its  more  universal  form.  All  possible  phases  of  force 
have  been  shown  to  be  necessarily  interrelated,  and  even 
interfused,  so  that  in  reality  the  exclusive  occupancy  of 
a  given  field  by  one  single  phase  of  force  would  be 
wholly  impossible.  Force,  to  be  force  at  all,  must  be 
complex.  At  every  point  where  force  is,  there  it  is  as 
active;  and  in  its  activity  it  must  involve  strains  and 
counter-strains  productive  of  constant  changes  in  the 
intensity  of  molecular  energy,  which  changes  become 
manifest  as  heat,  or  chemical  action,  or  electric  (or  mag- 
netic) polarization;  or  rather  in  all  these  it  becomes 
manifest  simultaneously  in  varying  degree.  Not  merely 
percussion,  but  also  compression  —  both  due  to  attrac- 
tion —  give  rise  to  heat,  which  is  itself  a  mode  of  repul- 
sion. And  in  general  we  find  everywhere  complete 
confirmation  of  the  third  law  of  motion  —  that  '  '  to  every 
action  there  is  always  an  equal  and  contrary  reaction." 

But  this  law,  in  thus  presenting  the  two-fold  nature 
of  force,  also  declares  implicitly  that  either  phase  may 

196 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  197 

be  regarded  as  either  action  or  as  reaction.  And  this  is 
in  effect  to  regard  each  phase  as  both  action  and  reac- 
tion. So  that  the  theory  of  the  correlation  of  forces 
seems  already  announced  in  germ  in  this  law.  Given  cer- 
tain conditions,,  a  definite  quantity  of  heat  will  in  its  con- 
sumption develop  a  corresponding  definite  quantity  of 
electricity.  But  just  as  well  the  case  may  be  reversed  and 
a  given  definite  quantity  of  electricity  may  be  expended 
and  have  for  its  product  a  corresponding  definite  quan- 
tity of  heat.  And  yet,  in  either  case,  the  force  expended 
cannot  even  be  conceived  as  existing  otherwise  than 
as  in  action,  and  hence  as  meeting  an  equal  quantity 
of  force  in  reaction.  And  in  these  cases  the  force  in 
reaction  must  evidently  be  molecular  or  atomic  attrac- 
tion. The  percussion  of  world  colliding  with  world  must 
develop  sufficient  heat  to  reduce  both  to  the  nebu- 
lous state.  And  that  compression  is  productive  of  heat 
is  sufficiently  known  from  familiar  facts,  and  is  strikingly 
illustrated  from  the  estimated  quantity  of  heat  devel- 
oped by  the  strain  toward  the  center  in  case  of  all  large 
masses — the  heat  of  the  sun  being,  as  Helmholz  suggests, 
kept  up  by  this  means. 

In  short  this  interrelation,  let  us  repeat,  is  manifest 
everywhere  in  nature,  and  the  whole  physical  universe  is 
but  its  perpetual  realization  and  illustration. 

But,  allowing  this  to  be  the  case,  there  appears 
one  grave  difficulty,  as  we  are  assured  by  those  who 
insist  that  " science"  must  above  all  things  be  "exact." 
And  the  grave  difficulty  is  this:  The  energy  of  the 
system  may  "run  down"  to  a  dead  level,  so  that  all 
motion,  all  development,  all  change,  all  life,  must  for- 
ever cease. 


198  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

"  The  principle  of  degradation/'  says  Balfour  Stewart, 
"would  appear  to  hold  throughout;  and  if  we  regard 
not  mere  matter,  but  useful  energy,  we  are  driven  to  con- 
template the  death  of  the  universe."* 

Assuredly  this  would  be  a  deplorable  outcome — 
especially  as  it  could  scarcely  be  hoped  that  there  would 
be  any  survivors  to  mourn  the  loss  of  the  "useful 
energy."  In  any  case  we  seem  here  to  arrive  from  the 
opposite  direction,  at  the  same  difficulty  as  that  which 
presented  itself  at  a  previous  stage  of  our  inquiry.  The 
difficulty  is  that  of  discovering  an  adequate  principle 
of  motion. 

On  its  first  presenting  itself  the  difficulty  was  to  find 
a  principle  that  could  initiate  motion.  It  now  appears 
under  the  form  of  an  unavailing  search  for  a  principle 
adequate  to  maintain  motion.  What  if  the  really  hope- 
less search  should  prove  to  be  for  a  principle  or  "force" 
adequate  to  the  putting  an  end  to  motion? — seeing  that 
"rest"  is  altogether  inconceivable  as  a  state  of  matter. 

It  would  seem  that  we  might  formulate  our  need 
thus:  "Wanted: — a  sufficient  reason  alike  for  the  birth 
and  for  the  death  of  the  universe."  Meanwhile  the 
undeniable  and  assuring  fact  of  the  universe  itself,  as 
here  and  now  actually  existent  and  throbbing  with 
vitality  manifested  in  motion,  offers  itself  pending  the 
settlement  of  such  questions  as  whether  in  truth  the 
" universe'  ever  was  really  born,  or  whether  it  will 
ever  indeed  die — whether,  if  its  birth  can  really  be  even 
conjecturally  dated,  we  can  ever  hope  to  estimate  out 
of  what  possible  conditions  of  chaos  or  mere  void  it 

*  '•'•Elementary  Lessons  in  Physics,'1'1  p.  375,  and  similarly  at  the  close  of  his 
work  on  the  "  Conservation  of  Energy." 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  199 

came  into  being;  or  if  its  death  be  indeed  a  fore-doomed 
fact,  whether  it  may  not  after  all  be  that  it  will  undergo 
self -cremation  and,  supreme  Phoenix  as  it  would  then  be, 
evolve  a  new  "universe"  of  at  least  equal  splendor,  from 
its  own  infinite  nebulosity, — for  "ashes"  assuredly  there 
could  then  be  none. 

Fortunately  a  way  cut  of  this  grave  difficulty  seems 
already  provided.  It  may  be  that  the  inevitable  and 
seemingly  final  "dissipation  of  energy"  is  but  a  phase 
of  the  wider  process  known  as  the  conservation  of  energy. 

This  doctrine  affirms  in  what  is  now  accepted  as  an 
axiom  of  science  that  the  total  quantity  of  energy  in 
the  universe  remains  and  must  continue  to  remain 
unchanged.  Energy  can  neither  be  brought  into  exist- 
ence nor  put  out  of  existence.  To  bring  energy  into 
existence  must  pre-suppose  the  existence  of  energy.  And, 
as  the  energy  previously  existing  could  act  only  through 
the  reaction  of  that  upon  which  it  acts,  the  energy 
brought  into  existence  must  have  already  been  in 
existence. 

Energy,  then,  is  not  merely  something  existing,  not 
merely  something  indestructible,  it  is  evidently  also 
something  uncreated,  something  the  creation  of  which 
is  inconceivable.  But  if  energy  cannot  be  created,  then 
all  energy  now  existing  must  always  have  been  in  exist- 
ence. So,  too,  on  the  other  hand  it  must  require  energy 
to  destroy  energy.  And  the  destroying  energy  must  be 
greater  than  that  destroyed.  Nay,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  there  are  not  many  energies,  but  only  one  all-inclu- 
sive energy.  And  evidently  this  total  unit  of  energy 
could  not  destroy  itself  in  any  degree.  For  in  acting 
upon  itself  it  could  only  bring  itself  into  equilibrium; 


200  THE   WORLD-ENEMY 

and,  indeed,  this  appears  to  be  what  is  really  meant  by 
the  theory  of  the  dissipation  of  energy. 

Is  this  equilibrium  necessarily  an  equilibrium  of  death, 
or  could  there  possibly  be  for  the  universe  just  as  well  an 
equilibrium  of  life? 

Implicitly,  at  least,  the  answer  to  this  question  has 
already  been  given.  The  totality  of  energy  remains  for- 
ever unchanged.  As  energy,  it  is  changelessly  active. 
' '  To  every  action  there  is  always  an  equal  and  opposite 
reaction/'  Hence,  the  totality  of  energy  must  always 
have  been  in  equilibrium.  For  its  activity  could  only  be 
within  and  upon  itself ;  and,  since  the  activity  of  the  one 
unchanging  energy  must  be  changelessly  the  same,  includ- 
ing the  aspect  of  reaction,  then  the  total  product  must 
likewise  be  changelessly  the  same. 

Evidently,  unless  energy  persists  in  all  its  relations, 
there  is  thus  far,  on  the  one  hand,  a  failure  of  the  per- 
sistence of  energy  itself;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
failure  of  energy  to  persist  in  all  its  relations  necessarily 
implies  that  the  correlation  of  the  various  phases  of  energy 
is,  after  all,  not  complete.  In  which  case  there  would  be 
absolute  lines  of  separation  in  the  total  energy ;  whence, 
in  reality,  there  must  be  many  mutually  exclusive  forces. 
And  this  is  the  same  as  saying  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
correlation  of  forces  is  no  more  than  a  fiction. 

In  short,  the  conclusion  that  the  energy  of  the  universe 
is  undergoing  degradation,  or  that  it  is  in  any  way  in  a 
process  of  running  down  to  a  dead  level  of  rigid  equi- 
librium, would  seem  to  have  been  drawn  from  premises 
which  were  no  doubt  perfectly  "exact,"  but  which,  there 
is  reason  to  believe,  were  insufficient  in  their  scope.  In 
the  first  place,  the  conclusion  is  based  upon  mathematical 


AKD   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION".  201 

calculation.  That  is,  it  is  a  (relatively)  quantitatively 
determined  result.  But  the  universe,  as  a  whole,  the 
total  (( quantity"  of  energy,  is  by  no  means  quantifiable 
in  the  sense  of  being  expressible  in  terms  of  any  human 
calculus.  It  is,  as  has  already  been  shown,  measurable 
only  by  itself. 

Doubtless  the  quantitatively  determined  results  which 
scientists  have  attained  may  be  approximately  correct  as 
regards  finite  portions  of  the  universe — the  solar  system, 
for  example — where  the  process  of  the  "running  down" 
of  energy  may  very  well  be  considered  as  in  actual  pro- 
gress. As  already  intimated,  this  running  down  of  energy 
in  finite  portions  of  the  universe  is  manifestly  a  necessary 
phase  of  the  total  process  of  the  conservation  of  energy. 

Nor  can  it  reasonably  be  doubted  that  it  is  precisely 
here  that  the  depressing  pessimistic  (or  is  it  really  uplift- 
ing-optimistic ?)  conclusion  is  reached  as  to  the  approach- 
ing "death"  of  the  "universe."  For,  after  all,  it  is 
fairly  evident  that  the  estimates  respecting  the  dissipation 
of  energy  have  reference  only  to  "our"  universe  in 
contrast  with  another  universe,  or  even  with  innumerable 
other  universes — to  which  it  would  seem  that  any  specula- 
tions of  exact  science  can  have  no  reference. 

But  any  such  local  running  down  of  energy  necessarily 
implies  a  previous  process  of  running  up.  It  is  impossi- 
ble that  a  body  should  fall  unless  it  has  been  previously 
raised  to  the  height  from  which  it  falls. 

Equally  impossible  is  it,  because  really  repeating  the 
same  thing,  that  the  solar  system  should  have  resulted 
from  the  falling  together  of  a  nebula,  unless  the  matter 
composing  it  had  been  previously  expanded  or  ' 'raised" 
to  the  vastly  distant  spaces  occupied  by  the  nebula. 


202  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

And  doubtless  the  energy  that  was  capable  of  bringing 
about  these  conditions  of  potential  energy  primarily  will 
be  perennially  equal  to  this  and  all  other  tasks  which  it 
pertains  to  its  nature  to  perform.  For  the  total  quantity 
of  energy  must  forever  remain  undiminished  according 
to  any  rational  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
conservation  or  persistence  of  energy. 

And  this  doctrine,  when  reflected  upon  and  fairly 
understood,  is  seen  to  be,  if  not  self-evident,  at  least 
clear  and  consistent ;  while  the  contrary  of  this  doctrine 
is  plainly  self -contradictory,  and,  hence,  "  unthinkable." 
So  forcibly,  indeed,  does  the  truth  of  this  doctrine  of  the 
persistence  of  energy  appeal  to  Mr.  Spencer,  that  he 
declares  it  to  be  "the  sole  truth,  which  transcends  expe- 
rience by  underlying  it."  *  And  so,  too,  it  would  seem, 
it  must  appeal  to  all  minds;  though  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  bring  into  explicit  statement  the  signifi- 
cance that  is  only  latent  in  the  formulation  usually  given 
to  this  truth. 

And,  first,  it  is  essential  to  fully  appreciate 

a. — THE   ABSOLUTE   UNITY   OF   ENERGY 

We  have  already  seen  that  force  or  energy  is  necessarily 
complex  or  manifold  ;  that  at  every  point  in  space  there  is 
a  focus  of  force,  and  that  the  force  thus  focused  consists 
necessarily  of  the  interfusion  of  attractions  and  repul- 
sions. It  is  in  this  far  that  force  appears  especially  as 
manifold. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of  the  correlation  of 
forces  points  clearly  to  the  conclusion  that,  after  all,  force 
is,  strictly  speaking,  a  single  totality  having  manifold 

*  "First  Principles,"  (N.  Y.  Ed.),  p.  192. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION'.  203 

modes.  So  that  now  scientists  no  longer  speak  of  forces, 
but  only  of  modes  of  force. 

And  this  view  follows  necessarily  from  the  very  nature 
of  force.  Precisely  the  same  reasoning  applies  to  the 
total  sum  of  force  or  energy  as  applied  to  a  single  focus. 
To  be  force  at  all,  it  must  present  all  the  fundamental 
characteristics  of  force  throughout  its  whole  extent. 
Otherwise  there  would  be,  as  already  shown,  not  only 
distinct  phases  or  modes  of  force,  but  absolutely  different, 
and  hence  forever  mutually  exclusive  forces. 

This,  however,  could  only  be  through  the  development 
of  each  force  as  absolute  repulsion,  since,  physically,  abso- 
lute exclusion  can  mean  nothing  else  than  absolute  repul- 
sion. But  thus  all  would  possess  the  same  characteristic. 
Whence  they  would  hold  themselves  as  absolutely  differ- 
ent, one  from  another,  through  an  identical  characteristic. 
They  are  absolutely  different  through  their  absolute 
identity. 

And  not  only  so,  but  each,  as  absolute  repulsion  or 
differencing  power,  must  exert  its  repulsion  within  itself, 
as  well  as  toward  other  forces.  Otherwise  it  would  be 
unable  to  resist  their  pressure  and  must  be  reduced  to 
no-dimension.  In  other  words,  it  would  undergo  anni- 
hilation. And  this  process  must  go  forward  until  but 
one  force  remained.  Hence,  if  many  forces  exist,  it  can 
be  only  by  and  through  the  absolute  self-repulsion  of 
each. 

But  in  this  case,  each,  by  its  own  absolute  self- 
repulsion,  must  expand  infinitely,  and  thus  not  merely 
thrust  itself  against,  but  also  thrust  itself  through  the 
contiguous  forces.  The  very  power  by  which  one  force 
would  be  able  to  exclude  from  itself  another  force,  and 


204  THE   WORLD-EHERGY 

thus  give  rise  to  many  forces,  is  thus  found  to  be  equally 
a  power  by  which  the  one  force  must  inevitably  pene- 
trate the  other  throughout  its  whole  extent,  and  ulti- 
mately mclude  it  as  well. 

That  which  excludes  also  includes.  The  external  is 
ultimately  the  internal.  The  conception  that  there 
are  mutually  exclusive  forces  proves  self-contradictory. 
There  is  ultimately  but  one  force  or  energy,  which 
includes  all,  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  "all"  which 
is  included.  It  is  a  self -including ,  self-contained  total. 

It  thus  turns  out  that  energy  is  not  merely  an  indivisi- 
ble total,  but  that  it  is  the  very  substance  of  all  reality. 
For,  as  energy,  it  is  substance,  and  as  active,  it  can  find 
its  object  only  in  substance.  This  substance,  too,  which 
is  the  object  of  the  activity  of  energy,  must  itself  also  be 
a  phase  of  energy,  since  it  can  be  acted  upon  only  by 
reacting ;  and,  in  reacting,  it  necessarily  proves  to  be 
energy. 

There  can,  besides,  be  but  one  substance.  For,  were 
there  two,  these  could  be  distinguished  or  maintained  as 
separate  only  through  the  possession,  by  the  one,  of  char- 
acteristics which  the  other  lacked,  and  through  lacking 
what  the  other  has.  But  thus,  again,  these  two  "sub- 
stances" would  prove  to  be  mutually  dependent,  and 
hence,  but  complementary  phases  of  one  total  substance.* 

Thus,  from  whatever  side  we  view  it,  energy  is  seen  to 
be  an  absolutely  indivisible,  all-inclusive  unit.  And  yet, 
as  that  which  contains  and  also  that  which  is  contained, 
the  total  energy,  or  substance,  is  different  from  itself,  and 
hence,  self-exclusion,  as  well  as  self-mclusion.  All  the 
relations  that  are  possible  to  it,  indeed,  are  relations  of 

*  Compare  Spinoza  :  "  Ethics,"  Part  I.,  Propositions  I.  to  VIII.,  inch 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  205 

itself  to  itself.  For,  beyond  the  self-contained  total,  there 
is  absolutely  nothing  with  which  that  total  could  possibly 
sustain  any  relation  whatever.  It  is  itself  the  sum  of  all 
reality,  the  one  positive  fact,  the  all-inclusive  deed. 

But  this  one  positive  fact,  or  all-inclusive  deed,  is  thus 
an  infinite,  or  perfectly  self-inclusive  process.  And  this 
process  is  that  of 

1). — THE    DIFFERENTIATION   OF   ENERGY. 

The  totality  of  force  or  energy,  then,  is  a  self-identical 
Unit,  but  a  unit  whose  very  self-identity  necessarily 
involves  its  own  infinite  self-difference  or  self-negation. 

As  self-identical  it  is  in  truth  self-affirming.  But  self- 
affirmation  is  in  reality  just  the  process  of  self -realization. 
It  is  the  unfolding  into  reality  of  its  own  essential  charac- 
teristics, qualitative  and  quantitative.  Hence  the  self- 
realization  of  the  total  energy  is  a  genuine  process  or  prac- 
tical activity;  which  activity,  it  has  been  shown,  and  must 
now  be  constantly  borne  in  mind,  is  and  can  be  nothing 
else  than  an  activity  upon  itself.  It  is  at  once  actor,  and 
that  which  is  acted  upon. 

Its  self-realization,  then,  as  the  process  of  unfolding 
into  reality  those  characteristics,  both  qualitative  and 
quantitative,  which  essentially  belong  to  it,  is  a  process  of 
unfolding  within  itself  distinctions  or  mutually  exclu- 
sive differences.  That  is,  the  self -identical  World-Energy 
in  the  very  process  of  its  self-realization  becomes  self- 
different. 

But  differentiation  is  negation,  and  self -differentiation 
is  self -negation.  At  the  same  time,  the  process  of  self- 
realization  on  the  part  of  the  World-Energy  just  consists 
in  its  self-differentiation.  Thus  alone  can  it  determine 


206  THE    WORLD-ENEBGY 

itself  in  the  sense  of  rendering  itself  concrete,  actual. 
Hence,  in  affirming  itself  the  World-Energy  negates  itself 
in  a  twofold  sense.  First,  it  negates  its  own  identity  so 
far  as  that  may  be  regarded  as  a  blank,  abstract  identity. 
Secondly,  it  unfolds  negation  as  a  necessary  factor  of  its 
own  concrete  identity  in  so  far  as  the  phases  of  its  own 
self-differentiation  or  self-determination  present  the  char- 
acteristic of  mutual  exclusion.  Here,  indeed,  there  is 
brought  to  light  the  true  meaning  of  the  dictum,  omnis 
determinatio  est  negatio;  a  meaning,  however,  which 
Spinoza  himself  seems  not  to  have  fully  apprehended  as 
belonging  thereto. 

A  glance  through  what  immediately  precedes  will  make 
it  evident  that  in  our  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
conservation  of  energy,  we  are  already  approaching  the 
question  of  the  nature  of  cause.  It  is  to  the  direct 
discussion  of  this  that  we  have  now  to  turn. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

DOCTRINE    OF   CAUSE. 

THE  very  conception  of  motion  necessarily  implies 
initial  impulse.  This  is  the  principle  underlying  the 
laws  of  motion.  And  the  impossibility  of  motion  or 
change  of  motion  taking  place  otherwise  than  through  an 
initial  impulse,  is  itself  but  a  special  case  of  that  wider 
law  that  no  event  can  take  place  without  a  cause. 

Considered  as  involved  in  time-relations,  the  event 
must  follow  the  cause.  Such  is  the  ordinary  view.  A 
bullet  is  fired  from  a  gun.  At  the  end  of  a  second  it 
strikes  a  bird  in  the  air.  The  bird  falls  dead  to  the 
ground.  The  elastic  force  of  the  explosive  is  the  cause  of 
the  velocity  of  the  bullet.  The  velocity  of  the  bullet,  com- 
bined with  its  mass,  is  the  cause  of  the  bird's  death.  The 
action  of  gravity  is  the  cause  of  the  bird's  fall.  The 
explosion  seems  to  occur  before  the  velocity  of  the  ball; 
the  accumulation  of  velocity  by  the  ball  occurs  before  the 
death  of  the  bird.  But  a  moment's  reflection  shows  that 
the  action  of  gravity  was  not  only  prior  to,  but  was  also 
simultaneous  with,  the  bird's  fall.  A  little  further  reflec- 
tion will  bring  to  light  the  fact  that  the  expansive  force  of 
the  explosive  is  nothing  else  than  the  energy  of  molecular 
motion,  which,  when  transferred  to  the  ball,  becomes  the 
energy  of  molar  motion.  That  is,  the  momentum  of  the 
ball  is  really  the  same  force  as  that  of  the  explosive  whose 

207 


208  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

energy  has  been  transformed  into  that  of  the  moving  mass 
of  the  bail. 

It  is  true  the  force  acts  through  time.  But  it  is  equally 
true  that  the  effect  produced  by  the  progressively  devel- 
oped force  is  unfolded  in  precisely  the  same  gradual  way, 
so  that  the  force  considered  as  cause  is  not  precedent  to, 
but  simultaneous  with,  the  various  phases  of  the  complex 
effect  produced — disturbance  of  the  air,  killing  of  the 
bird,  etc. 

It  is  worth  noticing,  too,  that  the  example  chosen  pre- 
sents the  two  phases  of  force  commonly  called  "constant" 
and  "  impulsive  "•  forces.  Gravity  is  a  ' '  constant "  force. 
The  explosion  of  gun-powder  is  an  "  impulsive  "  force. 
The  doctrine  of  the  correlation  of  forces,  however,  shows 
that  this  distinction  is  in  reality  the  same  as  that  between 
continuous  and  discrete  quantity,  which  we  have  already 
considered.  Indeed,  physicists  themselves  treat  this  dis- 
tinction as  a  fiction,  when,  for  the  sake  of  convenience, 
they  consider  a  continuous  force  as  made  up  of  minute 
impulsive  forces;  which  seems  a  little  like  reducing  every- 
thing to  infinitesimals  preliminary  to  omitting  the  incon- 
venient parts.  Though,  of  course,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  in  any  of  the  "exact"  sciences,  quantity  is  scarcely 
manageable,  otherwise  than  in  its  discrete  aspect. 

With  a  moment's  reflection,  however,  it  is  evident  that 
in  all  cases  the  exertion  of  force  through  time  must  be 
constant,  that  is,  continuous.  At  the  same  time  it  is 
not  less  true  that  the  known  correlation  of  the  various 
phases  of  force  shows  with  equal  plainness  that  force  is  at 
the  same  time  impulsive.  A  constant  force  is  not  merely 
made  up  of  a  series  of  independent  impulses.  It  gives 
impulse  because  it  is  constant.  And  the  changes  produced 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  209 

depend  upon  the  conditions  both  in  the  cause  and  in  the 
effect. 

But  thus  'it  would  seem  that,  after  all,  the  "cause"  is 
not  confined  to  one  side  merely.  Not  only  doss  the  vapor 
of  the  explosive  press  outward  against  the  ball;  the  ball 
presses  back  upon  the  vapor.  Not  only  does  the  moving 
ball  cause*  vibrations  in  the  air;  the  friction  between  the 
air  and  the  ball  has  the  effect  to  raise  the  temperature  of 
both  the  air  and  the  ball.  Not  only  does  the  ball  rend 
the  tissues  of  the  bird;  the  resisting  tissues  of  the  bird 
diminish  the  velocity  of  the  ball.  There  is  ever  action 
and  reaction.  Each  phase  is  cause  and  each  phase  is 
effect.  In  other  words,  cause  and  effect  are  but  the  recip- 
rocal aspects  in  every  event  which  takes  place,  and  hence 
are  simultaneous  rather  than  successive. 

The  relation  between  cause  and  effect  is,  nevertheless, 
commonly  presented  as  one  of  succession.  A  as  cause  is 
followed  by  1)  as  effect;  b  by  c\  c  by  d,  etc.  But  here  two 
caiises  at  least  alternate  with  effect  as  the  characteristic 
of  the  same  term,  though  b  as  cause  is  related  only  to  c, 
while  as  effect  it  is  related  only  to  a.  In  this  way  caus- 
ality is  extended  into  an  infinite  series — c  is  the  cause  of  d, 
d  of  e,  *  *  *  x  of  y,  ad  infinitum.  In  such  infinite 
series,  however,  the  phase  of  cause  utterly  vanishes,  a  on 
its  part  being  likewise  an  effect  of  a  cause  which  again  is 
effect,  and  so  on  forever. 

Here  again  we  have  all  reduced  to  the  infinitesimal 
degree  and  then  spread  out  so  that  the  limit  is  lost  to 
view,  whence  it  is  supposed  we  have  reached  a  solution 
of  our  difficulty.  But  far  from  any  correlation  of  forces, 
we  have  here  really  no  force  at  all — only  the  fleeting 
shadows  of  mutually  exclusive  forces,  all  which  vanish 
into  an  infinite  series  of  "effects"  without  cause. 


210  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

The  only  possible  real  cause  is  one  which  is  not  itself 
the  effect  of  something  external  to  itself.  It  must  be 
sufficient  to  itself,  capable  of  acting  from  its  own  impulse. 
It  must  be  self-moving,  self-realizing,  and  in  this  sense 
self-cause. 

And  yet  care  must  still  be  taken  to  avoid  narrowing 
and  distorting  this  view  of  cause.  Cause  thus  conceived 
evidently  transcends  time.  Self -complete,  it  must  be  com- 
pletely self-active.  Kelated  only  to  itself,  it  must  receive 
all  its  own  activity.  It  is  then  completely  self-receptive. 
Infinitely  active  and  infinitely  passive  or  receptive  of  its 
own  act,  it  shows  itself  to  be  an  eternal  process,  forever 
realized  in  all  its  perfection.  It  is  infinite  cause  and  infi- 
nite effect  in  absolute  interfusion,  and  hence  is  the  all- 
inclusive,  absolutely  self-complete  One. 

This  may  be  rendered  still  more  evident  by  a  consider- 
ation of  the  four  phases  of  cause  known  since  Aristotle's 
time  as  the  "Four  Causes."  It  is  intended  here  to  state 
their  rational  significance  and  relation  rather  than  to 
restate  historical  views  concerning  them. 

Material  Cause  is  the  matter,  or  substance,  or  essence 
of  which  anything  and  all  things  are  constituted.  Noth- 
ing can  exist  otherwise  than  as  involving  "matter"  in  the 
sense  of  essence  or  substance.  Hence  in  so  far  as  the 
existence  of  things  is  dependent  on  matter,  matter  must 
be  regarded  as  "cause."  And  yet  matter  as  such  is  mere 
blank,  self-identical  substance,  characterless  and  formless. 
It  is  mere  passivity,  bare  potentiality.  Nothing  can  arise 
from  it  alone.  Its  potentiality  can  never  be  realized  save 
through  some  agency  capable  of  differentiating  it, 
reducing  it  to  form. 

Thus  material  cause  proves  to  be  but  one  of  several 
necessary  phases  of  cause. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  211 

And  first  &  formal  cause  is  demanded.  "Matter"  is 
impotent,  a  mere  abstract  identity.  A  complementary 
formative  principle  is  also  necessary.  In  the  first  place, 
too,  this  formative  principle  would  seem  to  be  something 
quite  external  to  the  "  matter;"  in  which  case  it  applies 
itself  to  the  matter,  gives  it  form,  but  still  remains  sepa- 
rate from  it.  But  form  apart  from  matter  is  also  a 
substanceless  abstraction. 

Thus,  taken  in  isolation,  it  is  evident  that  just  as 
material  cause  is  a  mere  abstract,  possible  matter,  so 
formal  cause  is  a  mere  abstract  possibility  of  form.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  its  concrete  significance  matter  neces- 
sarily presupposes  form  just  as  form  presupposes  matter. 
Matter  or  substance  can  exist  only  so  far  as  it  takes  on 
form,  only  so  far  as  it  has  specific  character.  Form  is 
possible  only  so  far  as  it  is  the  system  through  which  mat- 
ter gives  evidence  of  its  reality. 

But  this  is  not  all;  for  the  very  potentiality,  alike  of 
matter  or  substance  and  of  form  or  system,  presupposes 
also  a  potency  through  which  that  potentiality  becomes 
actuality. 

Thus  an  efficient  cause  or  working,  realizing  energy  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  conception  either  of  material  or 
of  formal  cause.  And  here  again  we  might  suppose  the 
efficient  cause  to  be  independent  of  the  other  two.  Yet 
to  be  really  efficient  it  must  possess  substantial  reality. 
Nor  must  it  merely  possess  such  reality;  it  must  be  that 
reality.  The  working  energy  or  efficient  cause,  then,  is 
itself  already  the  essence  or  substance  of  things.  Sepa- 
rated from  that  substance  it  would  be  unreal  and  non- 
efficient.  Or,  allowing  it  to  possess  reality  and  potency 
apart  from  the  material  cause  its  very  reality  would  prove 


212  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

it  to  be  already  its  own  substance,  and  hence  its  own 
material  cause.  So,  also,  allowing  the  material  cause  to 
have  reality  apart  from  efficient  cause,  it  must  then  be  an 
independent,  self -realizing  potency  and  therefore  its  own 
efficient  cause. 

Clearly,  also,  efficient  cause  could  really  be  such  only 
by  being  completely  consistent  with  itself,  only  by 
embodying  a  perfect  method.  But  the  self-consistency  of 
its  activity  is  the  development  into  reality  of  cause  in  its 
character  of  formal  cause.  Hence,  while  matter  and  form 
mutually  presuppose  one  another,  their  realized  unity  is 
found  in  efficient  cause,  which  is  at  once  its  own  matter 
or  substance  and  its  own  form  or  method,  as  well  as  the 
concrete  potency  which  fuses  these  phases  into  a  vital 
unity  at  the  same  time  that  it  brings  them  into  perfect 
realization. 

Evidently,  then,  these  three  "causes"  are  the  abso- 
lutely necessary,  because  complementary,  phases  of  the 
one  true,  vital  cause.  Each  phase  necessarily  presupposes 
or  implies  the  others;  and  that  not  as  external  the  one  to 
the  other.  On  the  contrary  each  is  found  to  necessarily 
involve  the  others  within  itself.  Matter  cannot  be  matter 
without  being  also  both  form  and  efficient  formative  prin- 
ciple. Form  cannot  even  be  form  without  being  also  the 
vital  energy  constituting  the  matter  which  thus  spontane- 
ously unfolds  into  form,  while  the  potency  of  efficient 
cause,  as  just  seen,  cannot  prove  itself  to  be  potency  save 
by  unfolding  as  vital,  self -forming  (that  is,  self-differen- 
tiating) matter. 

Thus  we  reach  the  conception  of  cause  as  absolutely 
self -complete.  As  efficient,  self -forming  matter,  it  is  an 
absolutely  self-dependent  unit.  Nothing  beyond  it  is 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  213 

required  for  its  perfection.  That  is,  it  is  self -cause,  and 
as  such  is  necessarily  an  eternal  process,  forever  com- 
plete in  itself.  Nothing  can  be  conceived  as  existing 
beyond  it  or  apart  from  it.  It  is  the  vital  sum  of  all 
reality;  the  absolute,  self -forming  substance;  the  supreme 
truth,  or  final  cause. 

But  this  vital,  self-differentiating  unity,  while  it  is 
seen  to  be  the  final  cause  in  the.  sense  of  ultimate  per- 
fection, is  just  as  clearly  the  primal  cause  in  the  sense 
that  everything  necessarily  presupposes  the  existence  of 
the  perfect  cause.  In,  and  through  that,  all  things 
necessarily  have  their  being.  Apart  from  it  they  are 
not  merely  as  nothing;  rather,  apart  from  it,  they  must 
literally  be  nothing. 

As  final  cause  it  is  infinite  act,  and  hence,  abso- 
lute actuality,  it  is  the  infinite,  eternal  Unit  which  as 
such  is  "without  variableness  or  shadow  of  turning." 
In  it  potentiality  and  reality  absolutely  coincide.  As  a 
whole  it  cannot  change.  It  is,  therefore,  not  subject  to 
time,  which  is  nothing  else  than  the  abstract  form  of 
change.  Time  is  in  this  total,  but  the  total  itself  cannot 
be  in  time.  It  is  the  perfect  World-Energy,  and  as  such 
all  possible  phases  of  change  are  produced  within  it, 
while  of  it  there  can  be  no  change.  The  changing 
proves  to  be  a  phase  of  the  changeless,  and  therefore  time 
proves  to  be  a  mode  of  the  timeless,  just  as  the  meas- 
urable in  another  way  proved  to  be  merely  a  phase  of  the 
measureless. 

The  self-active,  self-realizing  World-Energy  is,  then, 
the  spontaneous,  efficient  and  sufficient  cause  of  all  move- 
ment. It  is  that  for  which  we  have  from  the  first  been 
seeking.  It  is  the  final  cause  which  is  seen  to  be  in  itself 


214  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

its  own  infinite  substance,  the  spontaneous,  eternal  pro- 
cess   of  balanced  evolution  and  involution. 

It  is  the  absolutely  persistent  force  or  self-conserved 
Energy  in  which  all  modes  of  force  are  realiz'ed  and  per- 
fectly correlated.  Whence  the  "  dissipation  of  energy/' 
in  the  sense  of  an  ultimately  "dead  universe"  as  the 
outcome,  is  impossible. 


OHAPTEE   XXL 

CREATOR   AND    CREATION. 

IT  turns  out,  then,  that  the  World-Energy  is  a  self- 
active,  self-sufficing,  self-differentiating  Unit,  which 
is  at  once  cause  and  effect.  It  is  the  Universe  or  Cosmos 
itself,  now  seen  to  be  an  infinitely  vital  totality.  It  is 
the  concrete  identity  of  the  world  and  its  Creator.  That 
is,  Creator  and  creation  are  the  complementary  aspects 
of  the  self -existent,  self -unfolding  World-Energy,  in  its 
changeless  perfection. 

Let  us  now  inquire,  briefly,  how  this  conception  com- 
ports with  accepted  views  of  the  creation  of  the  world. 

It  is  usually  objected  to  any  form  of  the  monistic 
view  that  the  Creator  must  necessarily  be  superior  to 
creation.  The  objection  is  based  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  created  world  is  the  realm  of  the  finite  and 
imperfect,  while  the  Creator  must  necessarily  be  regarded 
as  infinite  and  perfect — in  substance,  Plato's  view. 

To  this  it  may  be,  and  has  been,  answered  that  if  we 
hold  the  finite  and  the  infinite  asunder  we  represent  to 
ourselves  an  infinite  which  is  contrasted  with  the  finite, 
and  which  thus  stands  in  opposition  to  the  finite.  But 
in  such  case  the  infinite  is  itself  limited  by  the  finite; 
whence  it  proves  in  reality  to  be  itself  finite. 

So,  also,  when  we  contrast  the  Creator,  as  independent 
and  perfect,  with  creation,  as  the  dependent  and  imperfect, 

215 


216  THE   WOELD-ENEEGY 

we  represent  to  ourselves  a  " Great  Artificer"  stand- 
ing above,  and  thus  apart  from  his  work.  He  himself 
is  the  efficient  cause  of  the  world.  That  upon  which 
He  works  is  the  material  cause. 

In  this  (usual)  view,  then,  these  two  phases  of  cause, 
which  we  have  already  seen  to  be  inseparable,  are  held 
asunder,  thus  reducing  Creator  and  creation  alike  to  mere 
abstractions.  And  not  only  so,  but  in  this  view  creation 
is  figured  as  taking  place  in  time.  In  which  case  the 
Creator  is  at  times  active,  and  again,  at  other  times, 
inactive.  He  is  then  not  only  separate  from  the  world 
of  his  own  creation,  for  the  substance  of  which  he  must 
draw  upon  a  pre-existent,  and  hence  unaccounted  for 
"matter,"  but  he  is  also  not  continuously  the  same  with 
himself,  though  the  perfect  must  unquestionably  be 
regarded  as  "yesterday,  to-day  and  forever  the  same." 

Thus,  it  appears  that  the  effort  to  exalt  the  Creator 
by  contrasting  him  with,  as  separate  from,  his  creation, 
proves  really  to  involve  the  very  opposite  result  from 
that  which  was  intended.  For  it  makes  him  appear  as 
dependent  upon  something  lying  quite  beyond  himself 
as  the  material  without  which  he  must  be  powerless  to 
unfold  a  world  in  space. 

There  remains  the  conception  of  what  we  may  call 
absolute  creation.  It  is  the  conception  that  the  world 
has  been  created  from  nothing.  And  this,  though  often 
looked  upon  as  self-refuting,  really  contains  in  germ, 
the  one  really  adequate  view.  For  if  the  world  was, 
or  rather  is  created  from  nothing,  then  in  reality  the 
Creator  brings  the  world  into  being  by  and  through  and 
from  his  own  absolute  perfection.  That  is,  he  requires 
nothing  beyond  himself  as  infinite  creative  energy  to 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  217 

enable  him  to  unfold  the  infinitely  extended,  infinitely 
varied  world  of  finitude  and  change. 

"  Creation  from  nothing,"  then  really  means:  Crea- 
tion through  the  pure  self-activity  of  the  absolute  First 
Cause.  And  the  First  Cause,  let  us  repeat,  is  the  one 
absolute  energy,  the  very  nature  of  which  consists  in  its 
complete,  perpetually  self-equal  activity.  So,  also,  its 
activity  is  exerted  solely  and  necessarily  upon  itself.  Its 
activity  is  absolute  self -activity  and  self -receiving  activity. 

Once  more,  then,  the  First  Cause  as  absolute  energy  is 
an  eternal,  self-realizing  process,  and  Creation  is  but  the 
eternal  self-realization  of  the  Creator.  The  universe,  or 
cosmos,  is  nothing  else  than  the  self-externalization  of 
the  great  First  Cause.  Whence,  that  Cause  is  the  truth 
and  substance  of  the  world — the  one  sole  reality  and 
infinite  actuality. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE   WORLD-ENERGY   AS   SPIRIT. 

WE  have  seen  that  the  World-Energy  is  identical 
with  the  First  Cause.  And  the  various  phases 
of  cause  are,  therefore,  involved  in  it.  We  are  now 
to  inquire  what  further  is  implied  in  this  conception. 
And,  first,  we  are  to  remember  that  our  investiga- 
tion thus  far  has  brought  us  to  recognize  the  World- 
Energy  as  the  absolute,  self-sufficing  totality  of  existence. 
All  its  relations  are  necessarily  self-relations.  For  there 
is  absolutely  nothing  beyond  or  outside  of  it  to  which 
it  could  possibly  be  related.  Thus,  what  we  have  now 
to  do,  is  to  investigate  the  fundamental  phases  of  this 
round  of  self -relation  which  is  necessarily  involved  in  the 
total  World-Energy  as  the  absolute  First  Cause.  And 
once  more  we  are  to  follow  the  course  of  development 
in  the  logical  order  of  the  unfolding  of  these  phases  of 
self-realization,  remembering  that,  for  the  World-Energy, 
those  phases  are  necessarily  and  absolutely  co-existent; 
any  appearance  of  succession  in  time  for  it  being  inci- 
dent wholly  to  the  fact  that  we  ourselves  are  under  time- 
conditions,  and  must,  therefore,  view  the  phases  of  the 
World-Energy  one  after  another.  This  we  must  do, 
indeed,  even  in  our  examination  of  a  piece  of  mechan- 
ism or  of  art,  though  the  total  work  is  there  before  us 
as  a  whole  from  the  beginning  of  our  study  of  its 

218 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  219 

various  phases.  So,  in  our  investigation  of  the  World- 
Energy  itself — the  process  is  not  the  merely  fanciful  one 
of  evolving  that  object  from  our  own  inner  conscious- 
ness, as  thoughtless  wit,  or  witless  thought,  would  have 
it.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  process  of  developing  our 
inner  consciousness  itself  so  that  it  shall  be  progressively 
more  and  more  in  harmony  with,  by  which  process  we 
shall  come  to  have  a  more  and  more  adequate  view  of, 
the  World-Energy  in  its  completeness  as  the  one  primal, 
eternal  FACT.  It  is  the  progressive  "adjustment  of 
inner  relations  to  outer  relations "  which  constitutes  life 
in  the  highest  sense. 

With  this  as  our  object,  then,  we  will  set  out  again 
from  the  simplest  phase  as  the  logical  "first"  in  this 
culminating  stage  of  our  investigation.  That  is,  we  are 
not  to  set  aside  the  results  of  our  investigation  thus 
far.  Eather,  we  are  to  take  those  results,  henceforth, 
as  so  much  that  is  proven,  and  which  may  therefore  be 
assumed  as  assured  data  from  which  further  conclusions 
may  be  legitimately  drawn. 

And  the  central  result  we  have  thus  far  reached  is,  let 
us  repeat,  the  conception  of  the  total  universe  as  the 
absolutely  indivisible  totality  of  existence,  and  yet,  as 
presenting  two  necessary  and  complementary  aspects. 
Regarded  concretely,  it  is  the  World-Energy  as  self- 
active — 'that  is,  it  is  infinite  activity,  and  at  the  same 
time  infinite  receptivity.  It  is  infinite  Cause  and  at 
the  same  time  infinite  Effect.  It  is  at  once  Creator  and 
creation. 

a. — UNITY    OF   THE    WORLD-ENERGY. 

The  phase  which  here  presents  itself  with  special 
impressiveness,  is  that  of  the  absolute  unity  of  the 


THE   WOKLD-ENERGY 

World-Energy.  This  has,,  indeed,  already  come  into  view 
under  the  phase  of  the  unity  of  substance.  What  now 
devejops,  however,  is  the  fact  that  the  World-Energy  as 
such  presents  the  character  of  vital  reality.  It  is  essen- 
tially a  total  of  activity,  and  of  self -activity;  whereas 
substance  appears  rather  as  inert,  relatively  passive. 

As  the  vital  sum  of  reality,  then,  the  World-Energy 
bears  the  aspect  of  absolute  potentiality.  All  that  is, 
or  is  to  be,  alike  with  all  that  has  been,  could  only  be, 
or  have  promise  of  being,  or  have  actually  been,  through 
the  activity  of  the  World-Energy.  That  is  the  absolute 
presupposition  of  all  things.  All  things  are,  or  could 
be,  only  as  phases  or  modes  of  the  World-Energy. 

Viewed  as  potentiality,  however,  the  World-Energy 
appears  especially  as  a  self-equal,  self-poised  unit.  It 
is  the  vital  One,  forever  equal  to  itself.  It  is  the  uni- 
versal of  infinite  extent.  Self-comprised,  it  comprises  all. 
Self -related,  it  involves  all  relation  within  itself. 

But  again,  as  self-related  totality  and,  therefore,  as 
involving  all  relation  within  itself,  it  is  the  potentiality 
of  all  distinction,  differentiation,  particularization.  Thus 
particularity  is  no  less  distinctively  a  mark  of  the  total 
World-Energy  than  is  universality. 

At  the  same  time  this  self-multiplying  unity  remains 
forever  One;  multiplicity  being  but  the  form  or  mode  of 
the  potentiality  of  the  One.*  So,  again,  as  self -particu- 
larizing universal,  it  must  forever  remain  indivisible;  for 
the  very  setting  up  of  particularity  within  it,  is  solely 
the  result  of  its  own  act  as  One.  Its  indivisible  unity 
is  emphasized  precisely  through  its  own  self-particular- 

*See  the  dialectic  of  the   "  One  and  the  Many"  in  this  abstract  phase  as 
developed  in  Plato's  Parmenides. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  221 

ization,  which  is  ever  and  absolutely  its  own  process  of 
concretely  relating  itself  to  itself. 

Thus  as  self -particularizing  (that  is,  self -differentiat- 
ing) universal  the  World-Energy  is  seen  to  be  the  one 
absolutely  self -poised  Individual. 

Universality,  particularity  and  individuality  prove, 
then,  to  be  the  complementary,  mutually  inclusive,  abso- 
lutely interfused  phases  of  the  one  total  World-Energy. 
Each  necessarily  implies  and  in  its  own  unfolding  is 
found  already  to  contain  the  others  as  vital  elements 
or  phases  of  itself. 

Special  attention,  indeed,  should  be  given  to  this  fact. 
These  three  phases  are  the  logical  or  rational,  and  hence 
necessary,  phases  of  the  World-Energy;  and  they  are 
necessarily  co-existent  phases.  To  be  World-Energy  at  all 
it  must  be  individual,  and  prove  itself  to  be  such  through 
its  own  sclf-particularization  as  the  one  absolutely  active 
universal. 

But  to  regard  the  World-Energy  as  potentiality  merely 
is  still  to  form  a  very  abstract,  inadequate  conception 
of  it.  Potentiality  merely  as  such  must  itself  be  im- 
possible. The  potential  cannot  be  even  potential  save 
through  a  potency  capable  of  bringing  about  the  full 
realization  of  what  is  potential.  Hence  the  potentiality 
could  not  possibly  precede  the  potency  in  time;  though 
it  is,  of  course,  "first"  in  logical  order,  or  in  point  of 
simplicity,  and  thus  may  well  be  first  in  the  chronological 
order  of  our  investigation.  And  in  the  multiform  aspects 
of  the  finite  world,  in  the  world  of  change,  all  particular 
phases  of  existence  undergo  development  and  decay,  and, 
in  so  doing,  undergo  a  series  of  logical  transitions  in 
time;  and  the  chronological  order  is  here  found  to 


222  THE   WORLD-ENEKGY 

coincide  with  the  logical.  The  world  of  finite  things 
presents  in  chronological  order  the  logical  relations  which 
must  of  necessity  be  co-existent  in  the  absolute,,  self -equal 
process  which  the  World-Energy  itself  forever  is. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  now  that  the  self -equality  of  the 
World-Energy,,  when  considered  specially  with  reference 
to  its  potentiality — that  is,  when  considered  abstractly — 
leads  to  the  conception  of  a  moveless  equilibrium;  *  and 
this  easily  passes  into  the  anthropomorphic  conception  of 
repose.  Whence  all  early  forms  of  religion  present  in  one 
or  another  way  the  conception  of  the  Divine  as  "  taking 
rest."  This  appears  in  the  familiar  description  of  crea- 
tion, as  presented  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures.  The  Divine 
is  seen  in  council,  deliberating;  then  as  creatively  active 
for  a  period;  following  which  comes  a  period  of  repose. 

Here  the  deliberation  or  thought  of  the  Divinity  is 
represented  as  passing  in  time.  A  plan  is  considered, 
developed,  matured,  and  then  put  into  execution;  this 
latter  phase  of  predominant  activity  also  being  one  which 
unfolds  through  a  period  of  time.  Finally,  the  Divinity, 
having  completed  His  work,  .desists  from  labor  and  relapses 
into  a  state  of  relaxation  and  repose — the  abstract  self- 
equality  of  potentiality,  of  passive  equilibrium  and  self- 
satisfaction. 

Here,  indeed,  we  find  the  three  fundamental  phases  of 
spirit  imaged  to  us,  but  in  such  way  as  to  represent  those 
phases  to  us  as  not  merely  each  variable  in  degree,  but 
also  as  separable  from  one  another.  God  here  appears 
first  as  predominantly  a  thinking  agency;  then  as  pre- 
dominantly a  creating  agency,  or  as  will;  then  as  pre- 
dominantly a  self -poised,  passive  unity  of  self-satisfaction 

*  A  further  stage  in  the  development  of  that  equilibrium  which  we  have 
already  seen  to  be  the  logical  outcome  of  the  Laws  of  Motion. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  223 

or  feeling.  That  is,  God  is  here  represented  under  the 
image  of  a  man,  and  as  exhibiting  the  limitations  of  a 
finite,  changeable  being.  And  such  must  inevitably  be 
the  result  whenever  the  Divinity  is  conceived  under 
imagery,,  however  lofty  and  dignified  the  imagery  may  be. 

Another  remarkable  representation  of  the  Supreme 
Power  appears  in  the  Hindu  conception  of  creation. 
Here  Brahm  is  indeed  conceived  as  universal  substance; 
and  yet  so  imaged  as  that  passivity  and  activity  are 
assumed  to  be  completely  separable  states  of  that  sub- 
stance. Thus,  during  immeasurable  kalpas,  or  ages  of 
ages,  Brahm  may  remain  wholly  quiescent,  all  being,  all 
reality  absorbed  and  merged  in  his  unity,  which  then 
presents  absolutely  no  distinctions.  At  length,  however, 
the  repose  of  Brahm  is  brought  to  an  end.  Then  begins 
a  new  and  likewise  enormously  extended  period,  charac- 
terized by  the  activity  of  Brahm — the  self-unfolding  of 
his  substance  into  a  world  of  infinitely  varied  reality. 
And  yet  this  is  destined  to  be  at  last  reabsorbed  into  the 
substance  whence  it  emanated.  Thus,  as  having  no 
true,  abiding  existence,  the  world  of  finite  forms  is 
declared  to  be  naught  but  may  a,  or  illusion. 

Thus  to  the  Hindu,  more  literally  perhaps  than  to  the 
average  modern  Christian,  "the  world  is  all  a  fleeting 
show,  for  man's  illusion  given/' 

Nevertheless,  there  is  a  profound  difference  also  un- 
derlying the  outer  similarity.  In  the  Hindu  view,  the 
external  world  appears  at  first  as  a  world  of  reality  and 
permanence.  It  comes,  however,  to  be  recognized  as  in  a 
state  of  perpetual  change  and  dissolution.  Yet  the  fact 
that  change  itself  would  be  impossible  otherwise  than  as 
a  phase  of  the  permanent  does  not  wholly  escape  them. 


224:  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

Kather,  the  Permanent  itself  comes  to  impress  them  as 
the  one  primordial  fact. 

At  the  same  time,  the  habit  of  the  Hindu  mind  has 
ever  been  to  "think"  in  the  forms  of  the  imagination; 
and  its  sense  of  the  infinite  can  find  no  expression  save 
in  excessively  exaggerated  imagery,  in  which,,  of  neces- 
sity, the  infinite  is  ever  represented  as  one  among  other 
objects  of  thought.  Whence  the  endless  mystification 
and  straining  after  what. must,  of  course,  forever  remain 
unattainable  through  the  modes  of  the  imagination. 
Greatest  of  possible  symbols  it  is,  doubtless — that  of 
Brahm,  the  one  enduring  reality,  putting  forth  infinite 
emanations  from  his  own  substance  through  measureless 
aeons;  and  yet,  again,  when  those  aeons  have  passed, 
reabsorbing  all  back  into  himself  as  substance,  pure  and 
simple — the  OKE  in  which  all  multiplicity  is  absolutely 
canceled,  and  which  thus  reposes  in  its  absolutely  dis- 
tinctionless  potentiality  for  again  other  measureless  aeons. 
Mightiest  of  symbols;  but  a  symbol,  a  mere  image  it 
remains. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  popular  Christian  concep- 
tion— which  is  mainly  identical  with  the  Hebrew — is  that 
of  God  as  complete  and  completely  active  as  infinite 
Spirit,  apart  from  the  outer  physical  world,  which  is 
"as  nothing"  compared  with  Him,  or  even  with  the 
spiritual  interests  of  man  himself.  Thus,  with  the 
Hindus,  the  physical  world  is  illusory,  because  it  appears 
to  have  a  real,  abiding  existence,  and  yet  is  in  reality  a 
mere  temporary,  and,  hence,  illusory,  manifestation  of 
the  Divine  essence.  On  the  other  hand,  with  the  He- 
brews and  Christians  generally  the  physical  world  is 
illusory  partly  as  appearing  to  possess  greater  importance 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  225 

than  it  has  in  reality,  but  especially  because,  as  the  world 
of  change,,  it  is  a  wholly  vanishing  world;  nay,  even 
illusory  in  the  deadliest  sense,  as  being  the  special 
medium  of  the  anti-divine;  *  a  view  which,  in  spte  of  the 
advances  in  science,  still  lingers  in  its  crudest  form  in 
many  an  unexpected  corner. 

Such  imperfect  conceptions  inevitably  accompany  the 
unthinking  representation  of  the  Divine  as  a  being  lim- 
ited in  space  and  in  time,  and  hence  subject  to  change. 
To  the  mere  phantasy  there  is  no  contradiction  in  the 
conception  of  limited  space,  nor  in  the  vision  of  creation 
as  having  a  beginning  in  time.  Similarly,  the  phantasy 
finds  no  difficulty  in  picturing  to  itself  a  God  who  at  one 
time  is  engaged  in  reflection,  at  another  is  occupied  with 
the  work  of  constructing  a  world,  and  at  another  is 
simply  taking  His  ease. 

It  is  only  with  the  maturing  of  reason  that  the  contra- 
dictions involved  in  such  a  view  are  brought  to  light; 
just  as  it  is  only  by  being  made  to  pass  through  the 
dialectic  of  mutual  cancellation  that  those  contradictions 
give  place  in  the  mind  to  the  complete,  self-consistent 
view  of  the  World-Energy  as  its  own  infinite,  self-meas- 
ured substance,  one  and  unchanging,  at  once  the  all- 
including  potentiality  and  the  all-producing  potency; 
hence  the  absolute,  eternally  self-equal  PROCESS  OF  CRE- 
ATION. 

1). — THE  WORLD-ENERGY  AS  SELF-UNFOLDING  SYSTEM. 

Such  process  of  creation,  however,  is  possible  only  as 
an  absolutely  fixed  system.  For,  otherwise,  it  would  be 

*  Wherein  appears  also  an  Eranian  element  familiar  enough  with  those 
acquainted  with  the  Zend  Aoesta. 


226  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

a  self-contradictory  process,  which  is  as  much  as  to  say 
that  it  would  be  no  process. 

In  its  very  nature,  too,  as  the  sum  and  substance  of 
all  reality,  it  is,  necessarily,  a  completely  self-active, 
self-unfolding  system.  And,  not  only  so,  but  a  system 
is  in  its  very  nature  a  method;  that  is,  an  expression  of 
thought.  In  other  words,  an  absolutely  self -unfolding 
system  must  of  necessity  be  an  expression  of  absolutely 
self-consistent  thought. 

Thus,  the  World-Energy,  is  seen  to  be  a  process, 
unfolding  as  a  perfect  system,  which  system  is  but  the 
explicit  development  of  absolute  thought.  But  thought 
thus  unfolded  in  a  perfect  system  is  already  the  realiz- 
ation of  consciousness  in  its  absolute  form  of  ^//"-con- 
sciousness. This  is  the  very  core  of  spontaniety;  and 
without  spontaneity  there  could  be  no  First  Cause,  no 
World-Energy,  no  process  at  all. 

Thus,  it  appears  that  the  World-Energy  is  in  truth 
a  self-knowing  process,  the  perfect  system,  the  spon- 
taneous development  of  which  is  now  to  be  the  special 
object  of  our  inquiry. 

And,  in  this  connection,  we  have  first  to  remark,  that 
the  process  of  self-realization  on  the  part  of  the  World- 
Energy  is  first  of  all  a  process  of  self-revelation.  For  the 
World-Energy,  as  spontaneous  process,  is  at  once  product 
and  producer,  while  as  self-conscious  process  it  is  at  once 
knowing  subject  and  known  object.  And,  further,  as 
absolutely  conscious  process  it  must  eternally  recognize 
and  absolutely  comprehend  that  process.  It  is  absolutely 
self-knowing  and,  hence,  is  an  absolute  process  of  self- 
revelation.  It  would  thus  seem  that  Thought  is  the  cen- 
tral  truth  and  essence  of  the  world. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  227 

But,  secondly,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  as  shown  in  the 
introduction  to  the  present  essay,  the  test  of  the  ade- 
quacy of  thought  is  that  of  self-consistency.  This  is 
recognized  everywhere.  In  natural  science  that  is 
accepted  as  the  most  reasonable  hypothesis  which  brings 
into  harmony  the  greatest  number  and  variety  of  facts 
and  relations — not  indeed  by  setting  aside  or  abstracting 
from  the  contradictions  involved  in  those  facts  and  rela- 
tions, but  rather  by  reconciling  such  contradictions  and 
showing  them  to  be,  in  reality,  nothing  else  than  ele- 
ments of  the  concrete  harmony  of  the  world  of  nature. 
That  is,  the  thought  of  man  struggles  perpetually  to 
bring  itself  into  harmony  with  the  system  of  the  world. 
And  the  specially  conspicuous  instances  of  success 
attending  this  struggle,  are  announced  and  accepted  as 
"great  discoveries."  And  the  "discoveries"  are  nothing 
else  than  stages  in  the  growing  consciousness  of  man  that 
the  world  of  nature,  the  world  which  on  first  view  seems 
to  be  an  external  and  alien  world  to  man,  is  yet  a  world 
whose  very  essence  is  to  be  traced  in  a  faultless  system,  in 
a  concrete  unfolding  of  absolutely  complete,  self-consist- 
ent thought. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  secret  of  man's  ability  to 
"think  out"  the  "laws"  of  nature  is  precisely  this: 
That  the  "laws"  of  nature  are  nothing  else  than  special 
aspects  of  the  perfect  method,  the  absolutely  complete, 
self-consistent  thought  of  the  World-Energy.  So  that,  in 
his  successful  efforts  to  comprehend  nature,  man  is 
simply  adjusting  his  own  thought  to  the  thought  which 
unfolds  itself  in  nature.  It  is,  in  truth,  just  the  thought 
or  method  of  the  World-Energy,  and  that  alone,  that  man 
can  really  think. 


228  THE    WORLD-ENEEGY 

And  the  boundless  confidence  which  man  has  in  the 
absolute  perfection  of  the  system  of  thought  unfolded 
in  the  world  or  universe  as  a  whole,  is  shown  in  the  fact 
that  he  unhesitatingly  accepts  that  system  as  the  ulti- 
mate standard  by  which  the  validity  of  his  own  thought 
is  to  be  measured.  One  "fact"  is  declared  to  be  worth 
more  than  a  thousand  theories  only  in  the  sense,  and  in  so 
far  as,«the  theories  are  proven  to  lack  validity  by  failing 
to  harmonize  themselves  with  the  great  system  of  facts 
constituting  the  world  or  universe.  Thus  the  "fact  "is 
taken  (perhaps  unconsciously)  in  its  true  sense  of  deed, 
act,  actuality,  genuine  thought  unfolded  in  concrete 
form,  and  hence  as  an  essentially  valid,  indestructible 
phase  —  nay,  as  the  very  essence  —  of  the  world-system. 

Thus  the  great  thinkers  of  the  world  are  they  who 
have  most  adequately  comprehended  and  most  consist- 
ently given  expression  to  the  thought  which  constitutes 
the  world-system.  For  this  reason  are  they  the  typical 
discoverers,  though  the  whole  human  race  has  partici- 
pated in  the  explorations,  and  aided  by  its  whole  cumu- 
lative power  in  the  effort  to  bring  to  light  the  indivisible 
totality  and  perfect  self-consistency  of  Thought.  And 
this  entire  struggle,  let  us  remind  ourselves  again,  is  in 
reality  nothing  else  than  the  struggle  for  self-develop- 
ment on  the  part  of  human  thought  itself. 

We  have  now,  thirdly,  to  remark  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ference in  essence  or  type  between  the  thought  of  man 
and  the  thought  unfolded  in  the  activity  of  the  World- 
Energy.  The  one  real  difference  consists  in  this:  That 
the  latter  is  the  absolutely  actual  and  complete  system  of 
thought  forever  self-realized  in  the  universe  or  cosmos 
as  a  whole,  while  the  former  is  the  same  ideal  system 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  229 

of  thought  progressively  undergoing  realization  in  and 
through  and  for  each  individual  man  in  time.  Hence  in 
proportion  as  man  is  successful  in  his  efforts  to  discover 
the  essential  characteristics  of  the  Thought  of  the  World 
he  discovers  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  fact  the 
true  nature  of  his  own  thought.  And  the  discovery  con- 
sists in  this  :  That  his  own  thought  is  in  its  essential  or 
true  nature  identical  with  the  great  world-system  as*  the 
perfection  of  Thought.  Both  are  of  one  and  the  same 
ideal  type,  of  one  and  the  same  nature,  and  indeed  it  is 
inconceivable  that  they  should  be  different.  For,  as 
already  indicated,  to  conceive  them  as  different  must  be 
to  conceive  the  modes  of  activity  of  each,  in  order  to 
know  them  as  different.  But  thus,  in  conceiving  the 
modes  of  activity  of  each,  one  must  think  in  the  modes  of 
each;  and  this  would  be  to  include  in  one's  own  thought 
the  modes  of  a  consciousness  assumed  as  different  from 
one's  own.  And  yet  this  must  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  since  whatever  modes  of  consciousness  I  can  really 
include  in  my  own  thought  are  by  that  very  fact  already 
proved  to  be  modes  of  my  own  consciousness  as  well. 

Thus,  then,  the  perpetual  self-revelation  of  the  world- 
process  is  not  merely  a  revelation  of  itself  to  itself,  but 
also  a  revelation  of  itself  to  all  beings  having  power  to 
recognize  that  revelation.  And  the  revelation  in  any 
given  case  is  real  precisely  in  proportion  to  the  degree 
in  which  the  power  to  comprehend  the  revelation  is 
unfolded  on  the  part  of  the  receiving  mind. 

The  whole  universe,  physical  and  spiritual,  is  there- 
fore the  eternally  accomplished  fact  of  Revelation,  while 
on  his  part  man  is  ever  progressively  unfolding  his 
own  power  to  comprehend  the  revelation.  For  this 


230  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

reason,  too,  men  have  ever  tended  to  look  upon  Reve- 
lation itself  as  progressively  unfolding.  In  other  words, 
the  tendency  has  ever  been  to  make  the  mistake  of 
attributing  to  the  changelessly  perfect  Thought  which  is 
forever  unfolded  in  the  world  those  changes  in  time  which 
in  reality  take  place  only  in  the  unfolding  consciousness 
of  man  himself. 

And  now  we  are  the  better  prepared  to  recognize  that 
in  his  efforts  to  construct  a  system  of  thought  man  is  not 
really  engaged  in  the  idle  task  of  evolving  from  his  own 
inner  consciousness  a  phantasmal  creation,  pleasing  pos- 
sibly to  himself,  but  having  no  vital  reality  or  relation  to 
the  actual  world.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  engaged  in  the 
effort  to  discover  the  characteristics  of  thought  which  are 
universal  and  necessary,  regardless  of  his  own  special 
phantasies.  In  other  words,  he  is  engaged  in  the  effort  to 
trace  out  on  the  one  hand  the  fundamental  characteristics 
of  thought  in  its  universal  nature,  as  constituting  the  very 
essence  of  the  world  as  a  whole,  and  on  the  other  hand  to 
discover  his  own  fundamental  relation  thereto.  The  out- 
come of  all  which  is  the  infinitely  important  discovery,  as 
we  have  seen,  that  thought  as  such  is  one  in  nature,  real- 
ized in  changeless  completeness  and  perfection  in  the 
Cosmos,  and  also  in  perpetual  process  of  realization  in 
man  himself. 

Nothing,  then,  is  "unknowable" — precisely  nothing. 
The  "unknowable"  is  the  non-existent.  The  universe, 
or  Cosmos,  in  its  very  nature  is  Intelligence  in  absolute 
manifestation — an  open  revelation  to  all  beings  capable 
of  asking  questions  and  receiving  answers. 

The  one  true  system  of  Thought  is  the  actual  System 
of  the  World;  and,  conversely,  the  system  of  the  world  is 


AND    ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  231 

the  one  absolutely  complete  system  of  Thought.  For,  as 
we  have  seen,  thought  is  the  truth  of  the  world,  and  the 
world  but  the  concrete  form  of  thought.  Hence,  while 
pedants  play  with  words  and  trifle  with  thought  in  the 
name  of  that  logic  which  is  said  to  deal  solely  with  the 
forms  of  thought,  and  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
truth  of  things,  people  who  deal  with  things  as  the 
embodiment  of  truth  clearly  recognize  the  existence  of 
a  "logic  of  events,"  and  shape  their  lives  in  accordance 
with  the  inexorable  order  of  reason,  which  they  designate 
under  that  name. 

Now  the  true  "logic  of  events"  is  just  the  absolute 
system  of  thought  constituting  the  vitality  of  the  total 
world.  And  this  system,  explicitly  stated,  would  exhibit 
the  true  logic  wherein  the  universal  and  necessary  rela- 
tions of  thought  as  such  are  traced  out.  It  is  upon 
precisely  this  task,  indeed,  that  the  greatest  thinkers  of 
the  world  have  exerted  their  best  powers.  Aristotle's 
work  in  this  direction,  it  is  well  known,  was  done  with 
such  thoroughness  as  to  remain  unrivaled  for  two  thou- 
sand years. 

And  yet  he  emphasized  the  formal  aspect  so  far  as  to 
afford  somewhat  plausible  excuse  for  the  development 
of  this  phase  in  a  spirit  wholly  foreign  to  his  own,  and 
with  an  excess  of  pedantic  trifling  that  brought,  as  it 
could  not  fail  to  bring,  contempt  upon  the  very  name  of 
logic. 

It  was  Kant  who  gave  irresistible  impulse  toward  the 
restoration  of  vitality  to  this  science,  and  Hegel  who 
organized  it  on  a  wholly  new  basis,  so  that,  under  his 
hand,  it  appears  as  the  outlines  of  the  genuine,  vital 
system  of  thought  as  such  both  in  its  subjective  and  in 


232  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 

its  objective  phases.  The  "Logic"*  of  Hegel,  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  is  the  most  thorough-going,  consistent  and 
adequate  presentation  of  the  fundamental  categories  of 
thought  in  their  vital,  organic  relations  that  has  yet  been 
given  to  the  world.  Nor  is  it  likely  to  be  surpassed  for, 
it  may  be,  centuries  to  come.  In  any  case,  it  must  prove 
increasingly  indispensable  to  thinkers  from  generation  to 
generation  as  a  fundamental  link  in  the  historical  devel- 
opment of  human  reason. 

Its  method  is  already  working  into  the  thought  of  the 
time,  though  it  be  silently  or  with  but  guarded  acknowl- 
edgment in  perhaps  the  greater  part  as  yet,  and  is 
destined  to  exert  a  more  and  more  profound  influence  as 
time  goes  on.  That  it  is  a  book  exceedingly  difficult  to 
really  read  there  can  be  no  question.  For  impatient, 
flippant  people,  doubtless  the  only  practicable  way  to 
dispose  of  the  work  must  ever  remain  the  one  usually 
adopted  by  them  in  disposing  of  any  and  every  really 
serious  book,  namely,  that  of  casting  it  aside  with  the 
contemptuous  air  of  one  who  has  already  grown  too  wise 
to  spend  time  over  such  vagaries. 

For  really  serious  students,  however,  the  work  must 
become  increasingly  accessible  through  the  gradual  in- 
crease in  familiarity  with  its  method  that  must  follow 
upon  the  multiplication  of  works  imbued  with  its  spirit. 
Even  works  only  superficially  Hegelian  must  conduce 
to  this  end.  And  the  "evolution  philosophy"  itself, 
with  whatever  of  self-contradictory  one-sidedness  and 
materialistic  tendencies,  giving  it  the  appearance  of  irre- 
concilable antagonism  to  the  "absolute  idealism"  of 

*The  "  LogM"  of  Hegel,  as  the  reader  may  know,  is  in  three  volumes. 
The  Logic  of  the  "  Encyclopedia"  is  a  compendium  of  the  larger  work, 
and  is  now  well  known  through  Professor  Wallace's  excellent  translation. 


AND  ITS  SELF-CONSERVATIOH.  233 

Hegel,,  is,  after  all,  a  magnificent  imaging  of  the  self- 
evolution  of  the  world-energy;  though  for  that  "philos- 
ophy," indeed,  the  process  vanishes  hopelessly  in  the 
inane  void  of  the  "unknowable."  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  as  also  in  that  of  Aristotle, 
this  self-evolution  of  the  World-Energy  is  shown  to  be 
the  eternal  process  of  the  self-realization  of  the  absolute, 
divine  Spirit. 

It  is  toward  this  conclusion,  too,  as  I  attempt  to  show 
in  the  present  argument,  that  the  central  conceptions  of 
modern  science  also  really  point.  Antagonism  between 
real  science  and  real  philosophy  there  is  and  can  be  none. 
Philosophers  need  only  to  attentively  consider  the  actual 
results  of  science  to  discover  in  them  practical  illustra- 
tions of  the  fundamental  conceptions  of  philosophy; 
while  scientists  need  only  to  familiarize  themselves  with 
the  central  principles  of  the  much-decried  "  speculative 
philosophy"  to  find  in  them  the  clue  to  the  complete 
harmonizing  and  unification  of  the  results  of  science. 

It  is  true  that  Hegel's  "  NaturpMlosophie "  is  a 
most  unfortunate  "application"  of  his  admirable  dia- 
lectic method.  Its  arbitrary  fetches  are  such  that  no 
scientist  of  the  present  day  could  read  it  with  any 
degree  of  patience.  This,  indeed,  proves  Hegel's  defi- 
ciency on  the  side  of  empirical  science.  But  the  Logic 
of  Hegel,  nevertheless,  remains  as  one  of  the  completest 
and  most  symmetrical  of  all  the  monuments  constructed 
by  the  energy  of  human  reason.  If  it  affords  no  clue 
by  which  one  may  learn  how  to  evolve  the  facts  of  nature 
from  his  own  inner  consciousness,  it  at  least  affords  a 
clue  by  which  those  facts,  once  they  have  been  brought 
to  light  by  actual  observation,  may  be  recognized  as 


234  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

constituting  necessary  phases  in  one  consistent,  abiding 
whole. 

Surely  genuine  seekers  after  truth  might  well  afford 
to  adopt  as  their  motto:  "With  malice  toward  none; 
with  charity  for  all. " 

But  let  us  turn  again  to  and  pursue  the  main  line  of 
our  investigation.  And  we  have  now  to  notice  that 
thought  simply  as  thought  is  necessarily  abstract.  But, 
as  already  seen,  the  World-Energy  is  the  one  all- 
inclusive,  absolutely  concrete  fact.  Hence  the  method  of 
the  World-Energy  as  the  complete  system  of  thought  can 
be  comprehended  in  its  truth  only  as  a  completely  self- 
realizing  method.  But,  again,  such  completely  self -real- 
izing method  cannot  but  be  completely  conscious  of  itself. 
That  is,  it  cannot  but  be  a  spiritual  unit,  and  the  one 
absolute  Spirit. 

It  is  to  the  central  aspects  of  this  .process  of  the 
self-realization  of  thought  that  we  have  next  to  turn 
our  attention. 

C. — SELF-AFFIRMATION   OF  THOUGHT   AS   CONCRETE 
EXISTENCE. 

Thought  affirms  itself  as  real.  It  is  the  one  imme- 
diate, undeniable  reality.  To  deny  thought  is  to  affirm 
thought.  For  denial  is  itself  an  act  of  thinking.  Thus 
absolute  negation  is  absolute  affirmation. 

At  the  same  time,  and  equally,  in  its  own  self-affir- 
mation thought  also  proves  itself  to  contain  negation 
as  one  of  its  essential  factors.  Thought  is  the  power 
which  makes  affirmation;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  it 
is  that  which  is  affirmed.  Its  self-affirmation  is  then  in 
the  first  place  a  self-division,  and  since  self-affirmation 


AKD   ITS   SELF-COKSERVATION.  235 

belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  thought  this  self -division 
which  makes  its  appearance  in  the  nature  of  spiritual 
existence  as  such  is  seen  to  be  a  primal  characteristic. 
It  inheres  in  the  very  form  of  self-affirmation,  which  again 
is  a  fundamental,  distinguishing  characteristic  of  spirit. 

Thus,  in  affirming  or  realizing  itself,  the  World- 
Energy  as  spirit  must  perpetually  bring  about  its  own 
self-separation  or  self-differentiation.  Otherwise  it  must 
be,  and  remain  a  pure,  abstract  identity,  which  in  truth 
is  nothing  else  than  pure  nonentity.  To  be  real  and 
actual,  the  World-Energy  must  constantly  unfold  nega- 
tion within  itself  in  the  sense  of  developing  infinitely 
manifold  differences  or  specific  qualities  which  again  are 
the  positive  characteristics  through  which  its  nature  is 
affirmed  as  concrete  self-activity. 

As  actuality,  then,  and  above  all  as  the  primal  actu- 
ality and  truth  of  the  world,  spirit  must,  from  its  very 
nature,  unfold  itself  as  just  this  process  of  absolute  self- 
negation  or  self -differentiation.  Its  process  of  self-deter- 
mination or  systematic  self-realization  is  just  the  pro- 
cess of  its  own  self-negation.  "All  determination  is 
negation,"  as  Spinoza  has  it. 

But  thus  negation  again  proves  to  be  equally  affirma- 
tion. It  is  the  process  by  which  the  World-Energy  as  the 
one  absolute  spirit  unfolds  itself  into  infinitely  manifold 
reality.  As  a  concrete  individual  its  reality  is  exhibited 
through  its  own  self-particularization.  The  One  parts 
itself  into  Many. 

But  also,  as  just  indicated,  the  One  realizes  itself  in 
the  many.  Hence  the  many  have  their  reality  only  in 
the  one.  They  are  its  modes,  the  phases  of  its  realiza- 
tion. And,  more  precisely,  the  One  as  the  inherent, 


236  THE   WORLD-ENEBGY 

formative  principle  proves  its  truth,  its  concrete  actuality, 
through  the  multiplicity  cf  realized  forms  involved  in  its 
own  infinitely  complex  nature. 

These  particularized  phases,  again,  in  the  very  fact 
that  they  are  such,  show  themselves  to  possess,  in  and  for 
themselves,  no  real  independence,  nor  even  existence. 
They  are  ever  only  modes,  vanishing  phases  of  the  one 
indivisible  Spirit,  which  thus  proves  to  be  the  one  all- 
inclusive  Individual.  But  the  individual  which  is  all- 
inclusive  is  by  that  very  fact  also  universal;  and  as  that 
universal  in  which  all  particularity  is  contained  in  vital, 
organic  union  it  is  precisely  the  one  individual  Spirit  now 
seen  to  be  universal  through  its  own  spontaneous  self- 
differentiation  or  self -par  ticularizat  ion. 

While,  therefore,  the  World-Energy  negates  its  own 
abstract  unity  by  self-separation  into  infinite  manifold- 
ness  and  particularity  of  existing  and  mutually  exclusive 
forms,  it  also  negates  this  very  negation  in  the  fact  of 
showing  itself  to  be  the  one  sole  substance  of  these  infi- 
nitely manifold  forms,  thus  binding  them  forever  into 
one  through  what  seem  to  be  relations  only  of  one  to 
another,  but  which  are  seen  to  be  in  reality  the  system 
of  the  infinite  self -relation  of  the  all-creating  One.  All 
possible  phases  of  multiplicity  forever  in  process  of  com- 
ing forth  from  the  one  are  equally  in  perpetual  process 
of  returning  into  the  one  in  the  sense  of  vanishing  into 
the  one  universal  substance.  This  is  the  central  truth  in 
that  magnificent  symbol  of  emanation  and  absorption. 
And  it  fairly  represents  the  truth  so  far  as  the  merely 
physical  forms  of  existence  are  concerned,  save  that  true 
science  now  recognizes  that  the  vanishing  of  any  given 
form  is  not  its  merging  into  the  one  universal  Substance 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  237 

with  the  utter  loss  of  all  form  or  character.  On  the  con- 
trary, one  form  vanishes  only  as  another  arises.  And  the 
dissolution  of  one  structure  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the 
integration  of  equally  definite,  though  it  may  be  more  or 
less  complex,,  forms. 

It  is  thus  alone,  indeed,  that  change  involving  the 
existence  of  finite  things  is  possible.  But  it  is  also  pre- 
cisely through  this  absolute  interfusion  of  the  positive 
and  the  negative  phases  of  its  activity  that  the  World- 
Energy  as  spirit  proves  itself  to  be  the  genuine,  concrete 
Infinite.  By  the  positive  exertion  of  itself  as  energy,  it 
negates  absolutely  the  abstract  phase  of  infinitude  implied 
in  its  mere  self-identity,  while  through  the  fact  of  its 
perpetually  self-emphasizing  individuality  as  the  truth  of 
all  multiplicity  it  negates  the  (logically)  first  negation, 
and  shows  itself  to  be  possessed  of  true  infinitude  in  the 
form  of  absolute,  infinitely  manifold  self -reference  or 
self-relation.  Its  self-affirmation  is  its  self-negation. 
But  its  self-negation  is  its  self-differentiation  or  self- 
realization,  the  process  of  unfolding  its  absolute,  self- 
sufficing  wholeness  and  self-dependence. 

As  self -particularized  universality,  and  hence  as  abso- 
lutely concrete  individuality,  the  absolute  Spirit  (which 
we  have  found  the  World-Energy  to  be)  is,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  absolutely  self-sufficing,  and  hence  spontaneous. 
It  is  a  self -realizing  system.  It  is  thus  in  its  very  nature 
absolutely  self-consistent.  Its  self-negation  is  such  only 
in  the  sense  of  self -differentiation  or  self-realization.  It 
is  absolute  self-affirmation. 

But  this  it  can  be  only  as  involving  consciousness;  for 
this  is  the  very  essence  and  truth  of  self -relation.  As  a 
perfect,  self-realizing  system,  whose  fundamental  charac- 


238  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

teristic  of  spontaneity  is  in  truth  consciousness,  then,  the 
World-Energy  as  spirit  is  the  absolute  process  of  Reason 
unfolding  itself  into  an  infinite  self -ordered  world. 

But  even  so  the  absolute  self -consistency  of  this  pro- 
cess seems  to  impose  upon  it  a  restraint.  It  must  be  so 
and  not  otherwise.  It  is,  then,  in  its  very  perfection  and 
self-consistency,  the  perfect  expression  of  necessity. 
Absolute  Reason  is  absolute  Necessity.  Only  as  change- 
less self -consistency,  hence  only  as  necessity,  is  it  possible 
that  reason  should  realize  itself.  And  unrealized  reason 
would  of  course  not  be  reason,  or  be  at  all. 

But  thus  Necessity  as  the  fixed  order  and  self-consist- 
ency of  Reason  is  the  indispensable  basis  of  the  realiza- 
tion of  reason.  And  yet  reason  realized  is  without  ob- 
struction. For  Reason  is  the  essence  and  soul  of  all 
Reality.  Whence  it  can  be  opposed  by  nothing  but  itself. 
But  its  own  self-opposition  is  nothing  else  than  the  true 
equilibrium  of  its  own  self -consistency.  It  is  thus,  there- 
fore, spontaneous  and  absolutely  free.  For  Necessity,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  nothing  else  than  the  changeless  law  of 
the  self-consistency  of  Reason.  In  other  words  necessity, 
in  so  far  as  it  has  any  positive  meaning,  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  freedom,  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  freedom 
is  the  concrete  truth  of  necessity.  Necessity  is  the 
unalterable  method  of  which  Freedom  is  the  actual 
fulfilment.  * 

d. — THE  WORLD-ENERGY   AS  SELF-REALIZING   REASON   OR 
AS  WILL. 

On  arriving  at  the  conception  of  the  World-Energy  as 
spirit,  the  simplest  phase  of  that  conception  was  the  first 

*  Here  we  arrive  at  the  highest  conception  of  equilibrium  as  foreshadowed 
in  the  Laws  of  Motion. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  239 

to  formulate  itself  in  our  minds.  On  first  view  spirit 
seems  a  vague  universality.  It  bears  the  contradictory 
aspect  of  an  abstract  reality.  It  appears  abstract  in  so 
far  as  it  is  understood  only  in  the  vague  sense  of  some- 
thing exclusively  supersensuous.  It  appears  real  so  far 
as  it  presents  the  characteristics  of  a  spontaneous  power. 

Now  this  spontaneity  is  precisely  the  characteristic 
which  constitutes  the  internality  of  spirit.  It  is  subjec- 
tivity; and  it  is  this  in  the  first  place  as  infinite  concentra- 
tion within  itself.  In  this  sense  spirit  seems  wholly  non- 
material  and  to  be  merely  a  spontaneous  power  acting 
from  without  upon  matter.  It  is  infinite  impulse,  a  wish 
or  even  mere  vague  presentiment. 

And  yet  the  internality  of  spirit  is  but  one  of  its  two 
necessarily  complementary  aspects  or  phases.  The  inter- 
nal cannot  be  simply  and  solely  internal.  The  subjective 
cannot  be  merely  subjective.  The  internal  in  its  very 
nature  already  involves  external  reference.  The  "inter- 
nal "  must  be  meaningless  unless  it  be  the  internal  of  an 
"external."  And  this  outward  reference  is  precisely  the 
measure  of  the  reality  of  the  internal. 

Spirit,  then,  as  being  spontaneous  energy,  is  essen- 
tially a  self-externalizing  internality.  As  subjective  it 
proves  to  be  self-objectifying.  It  makes  itself  its  own 
object;  or  rather,  as  with  each  step  of  our  inquiry  it 
becomes  ever  clearer,  the  World-Energy  as  Spirit  is  the 
one  infinite  Subject  for  which  there  is  and  can  be  no  other 
object  than  just  itself. 

The  first  phase  of  this  self-externalization  or  self- 
objectifying  of  spirit  which  our  developing  consciousness 
seizes  is,  nevertheless,  still  a  relatively  abstract  one.  It 
is  the  phase  in  which  spirit  appears  as  unfolded  in  a  sys- 


240  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

tern.  It  is  merely  formal  objectivity.  And  this  formal 
objectivity  first  proves  its  completeness  as  the  abstract 
system  of  thought.  In  this  system,  too,  we  have  seen 
the  fundamental  characteristic  to  be  that  of  absolute  self- 
consistency.  It  is  the  spontaneity  of  spirit  that  proves 
to  be  in  its  highest  term  absolute  Reason. 

But  this  system  of  thought  as  merely  formal  is  still 
predominantly  subjective.  In  it  spirit  is  as  yet  seen  only 
as  virtually  or  potentially  objective.  And,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  truth  of  spirit,  even  as  subjective,  is  measured 
absolutely  by  the  degree  in  which  it  develops  itself  into 
substantial  objectivity.  The  internal,  let  us  repeat,  is 
wholly  without  meaning  save  so  far  as  there  is  a  com- 
pletely corresponding  external.  Nay,  the  internal,  so 
far  as  it  is  real,  already  bears  within  itself  its  own  com- 
plementary externality. 

The  World-Energy  as  spirit,  then,  proves  once  more 
to  be  not  merely  infinite  internality  as  impulse,  not 
merely  infinite  subjectivity  as  thought,  but  also  absolutely 
spontaneous  energy  as  infinitely  self -realizing  reason, 
or  WILL.  Through  these  three  complementary  phases 
the  World-Energy  as  spirit  unfolds  itself  as  the  infinite, 
unchanging,  completely  self -conscious' process  which  con- 
stitutes the  absolutely  perfect  personality  of  God.  They 
are  the  three  fundamental  and  absolutely  correlated 
modes  of  the  World-Energy  now  seen  to  be  in  its  final 
analysis  an  absolutely  spiritual  energy.* 

It  is  in  the  spontaneity  of  this  divine  World-Energy, 
then,  that  we  discover  at  last  the  secret  of  all  motion, 

*A  brief  consideration  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  withheld 
from  this  place  and  will  appear  in  a  succeeding  volume  under  the  title:  "God 
and  Man."  Of  course  the  intimation  given  in  the  text  is  altogether  inade- 
quate in  this  respect. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  241 

and  along  with  this  the  perfect  assurance  of  the  absolute 
and  eternal  conservation  of  energy  in  the  full  perfection 
of  its  vitality.  The  absolute  equilibrium  of  energy 
looked  to  by  physicists  as  in  process  of  culmination  is 
in  reality  an  eternally  accomplished  fact.  And  the 
equilibrium,  instead  of  being  realized  in  a  "dead  uni- 
verse," is  seen  to  have  its  perpetual  fulfilment  in  the 
infinite  vitality  of  the  divinely  constituted  Cosmos? 

For  in  its  truth  the  one  possible  equilibrium  for  the 
universe  or  cosmos  is  nothing  else  than  the  absolute  self- 
poise  of  the  divine  World-Energy  itself. 

The  central  conception  at  which  we  have  arrived  in 
our  investigation  thus  far,  then,  is  this:  That  the  truth 
of  matter  is  force  or  energy;  that  the  truth  of  energy  is 
spirit,  and  that  the  truth  of  spirit  is  absolute  Personality. 
God,  then,  is  not  a  mysterious  being  apart  from  the 
world.  On  the  contrary,  He  is  the  sole  truth  and  self- 
unfolding  Reality  of  the  world.  Hence,  it  is  to  be  con- 
cluded that  there  is  no  "material"  world  apart  from 
the  spiritual.  The  truth  is  that  the  so-called  material 
universe  is  but  the  out-putting,  the  utterance  or  outer- 
ance,  the  external  mode,  of  the  divine,  spontaneous 
energy  of  Spirit.  The  world  in  space  is  nothing  else 
than  the  external  aspect  of  the  world  as  Thought.  It  is 
the  absolute  Subject  self -objectified.  There  is  no  reality 
but  God.  What  we  habitually  call  the  "universe"  is 
nothing  else  than  the  outer  modes  of  his  existence. 

Thus,  once  more,  does  it  appear  that  the  laws  of 
Thought  are  equally  the  laws  of  things,  for  things  are  but 
the  objective  forms  or  modes  of  Thought. 


CHAPTEE    XXIII. 

FUNDAMENTAL   MODES    OF    MANIFESTATION    OF   THE 
« 

WORLD-ENERGY   AS   SPIRIT. 

~T"Y7^E  have  seen  that  the  World-Energy  is  necessarily  a 
*  *  self -consistent,  self -unfolding  system.  We  have 
now  to  indicate  the  chief  fundamental  phases  involved  in 
the  process  of  actualization  of  that  system.  We  have, 
indeed,  already  traced  in  outline  the  proofs  that  the 
World-Energy  is  the  ultimate  potentiality;  and,  as  such, 
the  primal  potency.  Nevertheless,  it  still  hovers  before 
our  view  rather  as  an  abstract  system  than  as  a  concrete 
totality. 

And  yet,  that  the  World-Energy  must  be  such  con- 
crete totality  is  evident  from  the  fact  (as  previously  indi- 
cated) that  potentiality  itself  necessarily  implies  or  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  a  potency  wholly  equal  to  the 
realization  of  such  potentiality.  And  the  potency  itself 
can  be  such  only  as  active  energy  unfolding  itself  into 
concrete  realization. 

That  realization,  too,  must  in  the  nature  of  the  case  be 
complete  so  far  as  the  potency  is  complete.  The  potency 
is  only  so  far  as  it  is  actively  unfolded.  Hence,  the 
realization  of  the  totality  of  existence  as  totality  must 
forever  be.  It  cannot  possibly  become  or  enter  into 
existence,  out  of  non-existence,  nor  could  it  ever  have 
been  in  process  of  becoming.  Though  all  becoming  is 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATICW.  243 

involved  in  it,  it  could  never  itself  have  been  involved 
in  becoming. 

To  remind  ourselves  of  this  betimes  is  of  the  greater 
moment,  as  neglect  of  the  distinction  is  almost  certain  to 
involve  us  in  the  confusion  of  assuming  the  identity  of 
two  radically  distinct  orders  of  relation.  The  one  is  the 
logical  order,  the  other  the  chronological.  It  is  one  of 
the  conditions  of  human  thought  that  it  can  only  trace 
out  successively  the  various  degrees  in  the  logical  order 
of  relations  necessarily  unfolded  in  the  concrete  totality 
of  the  World-Energy.  And  we  are  led  on  almost  inevit- 
ably to  assume  that  this  chronological  order  in  the 
development  of  our  own  consciousness  of  the  world  or 
universe  as  a  whole  coincides  with  a  chronological  order 
in  the  development  of  the  universe  itself.  In  other 
words,  we  mistake  the  becoming  or  process  of  develop- 
ment in  our  own  consciousness  for  the  becoming  of  the 
total  sum  of  Reality.  And  this  false  impression  is 
strengthened  by  our  observation  of  the  chronological 
order  of  development  in  which  we  see  all  finite  things 
to  be  involved.  And  yet  this  is  to  assume  that,  just  as 
our  consciousness  of  the  nature  of  creation  unfolds  in 
time,  so  creation  itself  must  have  unfolded  in  time. 
Whereas,  to  repeat  once  more,  though  change,  and 
time  as  the  form  of  change,  are  involved  in  the  total 
creation,  yet  creation  itself  is  not  involved  in  time  and 
change.  In  the  concrete,  changeless  Totality  of  things 
all  possible  phases  of  change  are  forever  present,  and 
thus  time  as  merely  the  abstract  form  of  change  is  com- 
pletely subordinated  and  merged  in,  as  nothing  else  than 
one  of  the  modes  of,  the  eternal  Whole. 

Similarly,  as  shown  in  the  introductory  chapter,  space 


244  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

is  the  mere  abstract  form  of  externality.  So  far  as  spirit 
externalizes  itself,  so  far  it  must  adapt  itself  to  or  make 
use  of  space-relations;  or  rather,  the  truth  is,  that  in  exter- 
nalizing itself,  spirit  gives  rise  to  space-relations. 

On  the  other  hand,  spirit,  as  such,  possesses  modes  of 
activity  wholly  independent  of  space-relations.  When 
thought  concentrates  upon  itself  and  investigates  its  own 
more  complex  properties  and  powers,  it  is  thus  far  engaged 
in  a  process  that  has  no  reference  to  space  at  all.  Whence 
space,  equally  with  time,  proves  to  be  but  a  subordinate 
mode  of  the  spirit's  activity.  Only  the  less  adequate 
phases  of  spirit  present  themselves  in  the  externality  of 
the  world  in  space;  though  these  phases,  of  course,  belong 
none  the  less  essentially  to  the  complete  realization  of 
Spirit  as  the  4ruth  of  the  world. 

To  these  phases  we  now  turn  with  the  purpose  of  indi- 
cating the  fundamental  relations  involved  in  them.  And 
first  in  regarding  the  World-Energy  as  simple  potency,  we 
seize  upon  the  characteristic  of  universality  involved  in 
that  energy,  and  hold  fast  to  that  characteristic  as  its 
truth. 

As  potency,  however,  it  must  act.  And  as  universal 
potency,  it  must  specialize,  or  differentiate,  or  determine 
itself  in  particular  forms  of  reality.  But  this  particulari- 
zation  or  differentiation  is  necessarily  a  self -separation — a 
self-repulsion.  The  universal  Potency  gives  proof  of  itself 
as  such  by  externalizing  itself.  That  is,  the  simplest 
phase  of  its  self-realization  is  that  of  externality,  that  of 
space-filling  forms. 

But  as  universal,  the  potency  is  not  a  special,  limited, 
particular  fact.  On  the  contrary,  as  universal  potency,  it 
is  primarily,  in  its  simplest  relation  to  space,  everywhere 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  245 

present.  Whence  its  self-externalization  does  not  consist 
in  its  expanding  itself  outward  from,  some  special  center 
in  space  until  it  becomes  indefinitely  diffused  through 
space.  It  does  not  go  out  into  space  from  some  where 
that  is  yet  not  in  space.  Eather  its  logically  first  (that 
is,  simplest)  relation  to  space  is  its  universal  occupancy 
of  space.  Its  externalization  consists  in  its  unfolding 
special  forms  of  existence  from  its  own  internality;  tliat 
is,  from  its  own  subjectivity  or  spontaneity.  And  pri- 
marily subjectivity  or  spontaneity  is  Spirit  in  that  sphere 
of  relations  which  is  wholly  independent  of  space-rela- 
tions, and  hence,  thus  far  cannot  be  rightly  thought  of 
as  located  in,  or  in  any  way  related  to,  space  at  all. 
Thus  internality  is  here  a  term  equivalent  to  subjectivity 
or  spontaneity.  And  this  is  in  strict  truth  its  only 
meaning.  As  ordinarily  applied,  it  represents  a  vanish- 
ing, wholly  illusive  element.  For,  as  regards  space- 
related  objects,  it  is  only  necessary  to  penetrate  to  the 
internal  in  them  in  order  to  prove  that  "internal"  to 
be  wholly  external;  and  this  to  infinity. 

The  internal,  then,  is  not  the  infinite  energy  of  the 
universe  focused  in  some  point  in  space  (and  hence  non- 
existent) but  rather  it  is  the  'essence  or  truth  of  things, 
the  spontaneity  of  spirit,  the  logically  first  phase  of  the 
realization  of  which,  as  just  indicated,  is  the  universal 
occupancy  of  space.  The  world  of  internality  or  of 
thought  unfolds  itself,  in  its  own  less  adequate  phases,  as 
the  world  of  externality  or  the  world  of  things  in  space. 

The  self-externalization  of  the  Absolute  as  Spirit, 
then,  presents  the  infinitely  extended  as  its  (logically) 
first  phase.  The  internal  in  its  self-realization  proves 
to  be  also  external.  The  absolute  Subject  in  its  own 


246  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

self-externalization  makes  itself  absolute  object.  The 
internal  and  the  external,  subject  and  object,  are  in 
their  ultimate  and  absolute  significance  complementary 
and  completely  interfused  phases  of  the  one  infinite  fact, 
the  one  eternal  deed,  the  absolute  actuality  of  the  divine 
Reason  forever  revealed  to  Intelligence,  whether  creating 
or  created,  in  the  infinite  process  of  the  universe. 

Thus,  the  universal  Potency  as  self-objectifying 
thought  fills  infinite  space  and  everywhere  meets  only 
with  itself.  Its  self-externalization  is  thus  at  the  same 
time  a  return  to  and  collision  with  itself.  And  the  tre- 
mor of  this  collision  is  the  logically  first  (or  simplest) 
phase  of  the  infinite  heart-beat  of  the  universe.  It  is 
centrality  infinitely  diffused,  and  hence,  everywhere 
present.  As  has  often  been  said,  the  circumference  of 
the  universe  is  nowhere;  its  center  is  everywhere. 

It  is  from  this  infinite  diffusion  of  centrality  that 
infinitely  manifold  lines  of  differentiation  result.  Thus 
the  universal  Potency  specializes  itself  into  endlessly 
varied  particular  forms.  That  is,  particular  forms  arise 
only  as  the  manifestation  of  the  universal  Potency;  and 
it  is  at  once  evident  that  each  form  is  adequate  only  to 
the  partial  manifestation  of  the  universal  Potency,  which 
must  therefore  continue  itself  and  complete  its  own 
manifestation  through  still  other  forms. 

The  Universal  is  thus  far  indifferent  to  the  perpetua- 
tion of  this  or  that  particular  form.  Rather,  as  the  con- 
tinuous Reality  of  which  the  particular  forms  are  but  the 
discrete  phases,  its  activity  must  result  in  the  fusing  of 
form  with  form.  In  other  words,  the  dissolution  of  one 
series  of  forms  is  involved  in  the  integration  of  others. 
Each  particular  form  as  inadequate  to  the  complete 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION".  247 

expression  or  manifestation  of  the  universal  Potency  is 
riven  within  itself,  dissolves  and  passes  into  other  phases 
of  the  manifestation  of  that  Potency. 

Thus  the  universal  Potency,  as  the  unchanging  Total- 
ity, gives  rise  through  its  own  activity  to  ceaseless  change. 
Hence,  it  might  be  said  that  the  one  changeless  fact  is 
the  infinitely  complex  fact  of  change.  And  this  is 
doubtless  what  Aristotle  meant  by  the  phrase:  "The 
unmoved  mover  of  the  world." 

The  particularized  form  is,  within  its  limits,  a  mani- 
festation, an  utterance  or  outerance  of  the  inner  univer- 
sality of  the  World-Energy.  It  is  an  object.  But  with  its 
limitations  it  is  an  object  among  other  objects.  All 
these  objects  are>  however,  but  the  discrete  phases  of  the 
universal  or  continuous  totality.  They  are  thus  far  in  a 
state  of  likeness  and  equilibrium  or  rest  as  toward  each 
other.  They  bear  toward  each  other,  therefore,  a  two- 
fold relation,  a  relation  at  once  positive  and  nega- 
tive. As  imperfect  but  mutually  complementary  phases 
of  the  manifestation  of  the  totality  they  attract  and  tend 
towards  fusion,  the  actual  accomplishment  of  which 
must  involve  the  dissolution  of  each  and  every  existing 
form.  But  each  is  at  the  same  time  in  some  measure  the 
actual  manifestation  of  the  universal  potency  or  World- 
Energy.  And  this  is  the  ground  of  its  existence,  more 
or  less  prolonged,  as  a  distinct  and  seemingly  inde- 
pendent unit.  It  is  precisely  as  the  manifestation  or 
present  realization  of  the  universal  potency,  indeed,  that 
these  particularized  forms  possess  the  power  of  self- 
preservation  even  momentarily.  And  this  power  is  devel- 
oped as  cohesion  within  the  given  unit  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  other  as  resistance  to  and  hence  exclusion 
of  other  units. 


248  THE   WOBLD-ENEEGY 

In  one  respect  then,  this  relation  of  mutual  exclusion 
is  one  of  independence  and  individuality  on  the  part  of 
the  particularized  phases  of  the  universal  potency.  So 
that  even  with  the  least  adequate  phase  of  its  develop- 
ment, individuality  shows  itself  to  be  the  vital  fusion  of 
universality  and  particularity. 

In  another  respect,  however,  it  appears  here  as  some- 
thing determined  or  given  explicit  existence  through 
external  agencies.  So  that,  while  in  its  character  of  an 
explicit  realization  or  manifestation  of  the  universal 
potency  it  possesses  validity  and  independence ,  yet  as 
being  only  a  partial,  inadequate  realization  of  that 
potency,  it  proves  to  be  wanting  in  validity  and  hence  to 
be  quite  dependent. 

Such  is  the  contradiction  inherent  at  every  stage  in  the 
finite  individual.  The  contradiction  varies  in  degree  and 
yet  never  wholly  disappears. 

It  is  essential  to  note  further,  indeed,  that  with  the 
initial  stage  in  which  we  are  here  considering  it,  individu- 
ality is  rather  a  premonition  than  a  realization;  though 
as  being  the  incipient  stage  of  realization,  it  is  especially 
important  that  it  should  be  observed  and  properly  char- 
acterized. Indeed,  individuality  can  be  properly  under- 
stood only  by  tracing  the  dialectic  of  its  development 
from  that  stage  where  it  is  indistinguishable  from 
mere  particularity  as  a  simple  mode  of  universality  to 
that  stage  in  which  it  is  seen  to  be  the  concrete  and  abso- 
lute fulfilment  of  universality  in  its  total  significance  as 
the  divine  individual,  the  "absolute,  divine  Spirit,"  as 
Aristotle  named  it. 

A  particularized  phase  of  the  universal  potency,  then, 
so  far  as  it  has  attained  to  the  semblance  of  individuality 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  249 

and  independence,  already  presents  itself  as  a  defi- 
nite '  object.  But  such  object  is  already  concentrated 
upon  itself  and  presents  tne  semblance  of  internality 
which  here  is  centrality.  The  object  gathers  or  collects 
itself  about  its  own  center.  At  the  same  time,  as  being 
but  a  partial  manifestation  of  the  total  energizing  prin- 
ciple it  is  necessarily  related  through  that  principle  to 
other  manifestations  thereof — that  is,  to  other  objects. 
What  the  one  object  lacks  the  other  possesses.  They  are 
therefore  complementary  phases  of  the  same  totality. 
Hence,  each  not  only  collects  itself  about  its  own  center 
but  also,  in  its  complementary  reference  to  other  objects, 
finds  its  center  also  in  each  one  of  them  and  in  turn 
proves  to  be  a  center  for  each  and  all  other  objects. 

Thus,  centrality  is  seen  to  be  the  primary  form 
assumed  by  the  phase  of  unity  throughout  the  total 
development  of  the  universal  potency  or  World-Energy. 
It  is  thus,  too,  that  sphericity  presents  itself  as  the 
natural,  necessary  form  in  the  primary  aggregations  of 
matter. 

But  the  World-Energy  as  Reason  must  in  its  self- 
objectification  take  on  all  rational  forms.  Whence,  in 
the  first  place,  the  development  of  the  other  and  more 
complex  regular  solids  through  the  process  of  crystal- 
lization. 

In  all  these  phases  of  aggregation, -however,  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  there  is  change  of  external  form  with- 
out marked  alteration  of  internal  character.  Hence,  the 
process  is  thus  far  apparently  altogether  external  and 
mechanical. 

And  yet,  the  characteristic  of  externality  presents 
a  still  further  significant  phase  already  incidentally 


250  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

noticed.  It  is  this:  Each  particular  object  as  being 
but  a  partial,  one-sided  manifestation  of  the  universal 
potency  exhibits  a  relation  of  dependence  upon  other 
objects.  Each  lacks  what  another  has,  and  has  what  the 
other  lacks.  And  precisely  for  this  reason  must  their 
fused  union  approximate  toward  an  equilibrated  total. 

This  is  exhibited  qualitatively  in  the  tension  toward 
such  fusion  as  that  arising  from  what  is  usually  known 
under  the  name  affinity.  It  is  evident  that  the  result- 
ant or  product  of  affinity  must  present  characteristics 
radically  different  from  those  exhibited  in  either  of  the 
one-sided  phases  or  "elements"  between  which  the 
affinity  exists. 

It  is  well  worth  noting,  too,  that  the  very  fact  of 
affinity  with  all  its  complexity  of  development  com- 
pletely negates  the  assumption  that  the  "elements"  are 
"simple."  And,  not  only  so,  but  in  their  manifold  com- 
binations these  "elements"  become  wholly  unrecogniz- 
able. The  truth  is,  indeed,  that  it  is  only  in  their  com- 
pounds that  the  elements  attain  their  full  realization. 
Their  "affinity"  for  each  other,  so  long  as  they  are  held 
asunder,  is  their  potentiality.  The  compound  formed 
by  their  combination  is  that  potentiality  developed  to 
real  potency.  And  to  form  some  approximate  concep- 
tion of  the  marvelously  complex  potentiality  of  the  so- 
called  elements,  one  need  only  trace  out  the  multiple 
and  extremely  varied  oxides ;  or  glance  through  a  vol- 
ume giving  the  amazingly  manifold  series  of  known 
carbon  compounds,  and  then  reflect  that  in  no  two 
cases  is  the  " affinity" — the  action  and  reaction — of 
precisely  the  same  degree,  and  hence  that  in  no  two 
cases  are  the  resultants  of  precisely  the  same  character. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  251 

And  here  we  have  a  premonition  or  even  elementary 
phase  of  spontaneity  developing  in  the  space-world.  The 
internal  shows  itself  to  be  ever  spontaneously  developing 
itself  to  externality.  Similarly  the  external,  as  being 
itself  but  the  outer  phase  of  the  internal,  proves  to  be 
completely  pervaded  with  or  characterized  by  iiiternality. 
Affinity  shows  itself  to  be  primarily  the  tension  toward 
union  between  two  oppositely  characterized  elements. 
And  the  affinity  of  these  for  each  other  gives  them  the 
appearance  of  exhibiting  choice  or  preference.  For 
while  they  show  tension  for  or  toward  one  another,  they 
prove  themselves  to  be,  at  least  relatively,  indifferent 
toward  other  elements. 

True,  this  is  only  formal  and  even  mechanical  choice. 
And  in  this  fact,  indeed,  is  shown  the  fundamental  iden- 
tity (that  is,  identity  in  kind)  of  chemical  action  with 
mechanical  action.  At  the  same  time  the  preference 
does  here  present  itself;  though  it  is  also  to  be  observed 
that  this  is  the  most  external  phase  of  recognizable 
internality  beyond  that  of  centrality  in  general.  The 
principle  of  "chemism"  appears  with  far  profounder 
import  in  sexual  tension,  even  as  this  is  manifest  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  and  still  more  in  the  animal  king- 
dom; while  its  most  elevated  sphere  of  manifestation, 
where  it  is  revealed  as  genuine  internality,  is  found  in 
the  love  and  friendship  existing  between  pure  and  noble 
minds.  At  the  same  time,  no  really  thoughtful  mind 
would  for  a  moment  allow  the  abstract  identity  here 
apparent,  under  the  form  of  continuity  of  principle,  to 
obscure  the  enormous  difference  in  degree  requiring  in 
the  higher  sphere  quite  other  categories  than  that  of 
"chemism,"  or  mere  "affinity." 


252  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

Indeed,  this  leads  quite  out  of  the  sphere  of  externality 
and  dependence  and  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the 
internal  and  spontaneous.  And  the  question  very  pro- 
perly arises  whether  we  have  not  here  the  real  solution  of 
the  question  of  "  final  causes." 

The  answer  to  this  question  in  its  universal  character 
was  reached,  indeed,  at  an  earlier  stage  of  our  inquiry, 
when  the  general  question  of  causality  was  under  con- 
sideration. Here,  however,  the  question  presents  itself 
as  to  the  adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  as  exhibited  in  the 
physical  world. 

First  of  all,  it  is  evident  that  the  results  arrived  at 
in  nature,  show  plan  or  method,  and  therefore,  purpose. 
This  cannot  be  reasonably  denied.  But  that  plan  and 
purpose  are  imposed  upon  nature  by  some  power  external 
to  nature  is  a  view  which  the  whole  course  of  the  pre- 
ceding argument  tends  absolutely  to  refute.  Nature,  or 
the  external  world,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  nothing  else  than 
the  externalization  or  outerance  of  the  internal  world 
which  is  otherwise  to  be  named  Spirit.  The  purpos- 
ing, planning  Intelligence,  proofs  of  the  activity  of  which 
appear  at  every  turn,  is  precisely  the  inner,  vital  prin- 
ciple which,  instead  of  applying  itself  upon  a  world  of 
externality  already  at  hand,  unfolds  itself  in  a  world  of 
externality  which  is  thus  nothing  else  than  Spirit  thus 
far  self -realized  in  the  forms  of  the  space-world. 

The  plan  of  the  world,  the  "established  order" 
which  Mr.  Spencer  recognizes  as  a  necessary  phase  of 
the  totality  of  existence,  is  nothing  else  than  the  perfect 
method  of  the  divine  Spirit,  whose  eternal  activity 
exhibits,  necessarily,  the  two  absolutely  balanced  and 
complementary  phases  of  involution  and  evolution — of 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  253 

an  infinite  internality  which  is  forever  completely 
unfolded  in  the  infinitely  manifold  world-in-space. 

Whence,  once  more,  the  universe  can  never  grow  old 
nor  decay.  The  absolute,  eternal  process,  of  which 
the  "universe"  itself  is  but  the  outer  form  and  reve- 
lation, preserves  the  whole  in  perennial  vigor,  trans- 
forming death  into  life,  and  decay  into  renewed  youth. 
For  the  Process  which  preserves  is  itself  the  Whole  which 
is  preserved. 

Evidently,  too,  in  this  all-comprising  process  the 
"  plan  "  could  not  be  first  deliberated  upon  and  then  put 
in  execution — the  "world"  being  formed  and  then  left 
to  fulfil  the  complex  divine  Purpose,  running  on  by  mere 
"physical"  energy  until  it  fulfils  the  plan,  runs  down 
and  collapses  into  nonentity  or  mere  wastes  of  equili- 
brated but  "useless"  energy.  On  the  contrary,  if  the 
foregoing  argument  has  led  to  any  result,  it  is  that 
creation  is  the  eternal  vital  fact  or  deed;  that  the  divine 
Spirit  is  the  truth  and  sole  substance  of  the  world,  and 
that,  apart  from  this,  there  is  absolutely  nothing.  Were 
the  divine  Energy  for  a  moment  to  cease  its  activity,  the 
world  must  that  instant  vanish  utterly. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  divine  Spirit  itself,  as  absolute 
energy,  bears  in  its  own  nature  the  absolute  necessity  of 
activity.  For  energy  is  real  only  as  active.  The  very 
law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  presupposes  this. 
Thus  God  is  everywhere  revealed  before  our  eyes.  And 
if  we  fail  to  behold  Him  it  is  because  we  are  blind,  and 
not  because  He  is  hidden.  The  pantheism  of  antiquity, 
in  which  all  is  God,  is  replaced  by  the  pantheism  of 
Christianity,  in  which  God  is  all  and  (therefore)  in  all. 

Des  Cartes  was  right  in  saying  that  the  same  power 


254  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

required  to  create  a  world  is  also  necessary  to  its  pres- 
ervation. For  " creation"  and  "preservation"  are  but 
different  names  for  one  and  the  same  eternal  deed. 
Thus,  all  "final  causes"  coalesce  into  the  one  eternal 
purpose  of  the  self-realization  of  the  divine  Reason.  So 
that  once  more  the  Final  Cause  is  simply  the  absolute 
method  by  which  the  Primal  Cause  forever  works,  and  in 
its  consistent  working  preserves  its  own  absolute  equi- 
librium at  the  same  time  that  it  creatively  preserves  its 
own  eternally  complete  self-realization. 

All  "causes"  then,  are  but  the  partially  understood 
phases  of  the  one  absolute  self-cause,  or  self-existent 
Substance,  as  Spinoza  defines  it.  This  is  the  true  teleo- 
logical  principal  which  has  been  coming  into  more 
and  more  explicit  utterance  throughout  the  present 
discussion. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  process  of  the 
development  of  life  as  one  of  the  fundamental  modes  of 
manifestation  of  the  World-Energy  as  spirit.  But  to 
this  we  must  devote  a  separate  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

EVOLUTION   OF   LIFE-FORMS. 

TT  has  been  shown  that  the  sole  sufficient  cause  of  all 
-*•  movement  and  of  all  reality  is  to  be  found  in  the 
spontaneity  of  the  absolute  divine  Spirit.  We  have  also 
seen  that  as  spontaneity  the  divine  Spirit  is  absolute 
internality  or  subjectivity. 

But  subjectivity  and  internality  are  themselves  one- 
sided terms.  Neither  can  have  any  meaning  save  in 
connection  with  its  correlative.  The  inner  apart  from 
the  outer,  the  subjective  apart  from  the  objective,  could 
be  nothing  else  than  a  pure  abstraction  of  our  own  finite 
thought.  At  the  present  stage  of  our  inquiry  all  this 
has  grown  familiar.  The  subjective,  in  its  ultimate 
significance,  is  now  understood  to  be  the  energizing 
principle  which  is  ever  unfolding  itself  into  all  forms 
of  objective  reality. 

This  principle,  then,  is  itself  absolute  Vitality;  and,  as 
such,  it  must  from  its  very  nature  unfold  into  all  phases 
of  reality  belonging  thereto.  As  already  seen,  it  involves 
within  its  own  nature  the  necessity  of  self-externaliza- 
tion  in  the  mechanical  and  chemical  relations  of  the 
world  in  space.  The  first  phase  of  recoil  from  this 
merely  outward  tendency  is  seen  in  centrality,  the  second 
in  affinity,  or  chemism  in  its  wider  acceptation.  We 
now  come  to  inquire  what  must  be  the  next  fundamental 
stage.  ^ 


256  THE   WORLD-EKERGY 

Centrality  in  the  world  of  external  forms,  let  us  remem- 
ber, is  energy  directed  toward  a  given  point.  It  is  itself, 
therefore,  a  tendency  toward  the  annulment  of  the  ex- 
tended. For  the  strain  toward  the  center  manifest  in 
the  external  is  in  reality  a  tendency  toward  the  annulment 
of  externality.  And  this  is  but  to  state  in  its  dialectic 
form  the  conception  often  repeated  that,  were  attraction 
to  act  without  restraint,,  it  must  concentrate  all  matter  in 
a  point.  In  other  words>  it  must  reduce  the  extended  to 
the  non-extended. 

The  abstractness  of  such  view  is  thus  rendered  appar- 
ent. In  all  genuine  reality  there  is  necessarily  action 
and  reaction.  Either  phase  without  the  other,  as  already 
sufficiently  shown,  must  be  wholly  impossible. 

At  the  same  time  centrality,  however  abstract  a  char- 
acteristic when  taken  simply  by  itself,  is  still  an  essential 
phase  of  every  specialized  unit.  In  its  simplest  form  it  is 
external  internality.  The  parts  of  an  extended  unit  are 
grouped  around  the  center.  They  are  therefore  side  by 
side  with  and  thus  external  to  the  center;  whence,  con- 
versely, the  center,  considered  in  relation  to  the  parts 
singly,  is  also  external  to  them. 

Thus  the  purely  physical  center  has,  after  all,  no  true 
internality — of  which,  as  already  remarked,  the  world  in 
space,  as  such,  affords  absolutely  no  genuine  instance. 
And  yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  center  of  an  object  in 
space  shows  the  first  phase  of  tendency  in  the  external 
toward  internality;  though  in  the  object,  as  physical 
object  merely,  the  tendency  must  of  course  remain 
unrealized. 

In  affinity,  on  the  other  hand,  the  external  already  ex- 
hibits a  true  phase  of  internality.  The  elements  entering 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  257 

into  a  compound  have  not  merely  served  as  centers  for 
one  another  while  remaining  external  and  qualitatively 
indifferent  to  each  other.  On  the  contrary,,  they  have 
become  completely  fused.  Each  thus  becomes  internal  to 
the  other,  while  yet  it  remains  external.  Hence,  their 
fused  unity  presents  the  realized  possibilities  of  both 
within  the  range  of  their  mutual  relation,  and  the  com- 
pound thus  appears  as  something  wholly  new  in  its  quali- 
tative character.* 

And  yet  even  here  the  new  relation  is  no  sooner  estab- 
lished than  activity,  as  producing  further  change  of  rela- 
tion between  the  elements  thus  combined,  falls  into  abey- 
ance; or  rather,  it  remains  only  as  preserving  the  balance 
of  relations,  and  so  resisting  further  change.  What 
has  been  accomplished  appears  to  be  nothing  else  than 
the  production  of  a  state  of  indifference  or  equilibrium — 
a  mere  dead  result  (typical,  it  would  seem,  of  a  prospect- 
ively  "dead  universe").  And  one  begins  once  more  to 
inquire  with  not  unnatural  concern,  whether,  indeed, 
such  dead  result  is,  after  all,  the  ultimatum  of  the  results 
to  be  produced  by  the  spontaneous  energy  of  the  primal 
cause  of  things. 

But  here  it  is  to  be  observed  again  that  this  spontane- 
ous energy  is,  from  its  very  nature,  incessant  in  its  activ- 
ity; from  which  fact  it  could  hardly  be  inferred  that  a 
mere  dead  result  is  ever  to  follow.  Besides,  the  perma- 
nence of  the  chemical  compound  in  any  given  case  is 
largely  a  question  of  relative  affinity.  Let  another  element 
appear,  having  for  either  of  those  in  the  compound  an 
affinity  stronger  than  that  between  those  of  which  the 

*  As  already  intimated,  we  can  really  know  an  element  only  by  tracing  it 
through  all  its  relations,  as  actually  exhibited  in  the  compounds  formed  by 
its  union  with  other  elements. 


258  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

compound  is  constituted,  and  at  once  the  compound  is 
reduced,  and  another  and  different  one  is  formed. 

Thus  the  internality  exhibited  in  affinity  is  still  char- 
acterized by  externality.  The  two  phases  seem  ever  to  be 
held  asunder — whence  internality  is  found  to  be  thus  far 
external  to  externality.  And  we  have  seen  that  the  truth 
of  internality  is  in  its  own  continuous  unfolding  of  itself 
into  externality.  The  internal  is  to  become  external,  not 
by  being  violently  held  in  isolation  from  the  external,  but 
through  its  own  free,  ceaseless  self-evolution  into  external 
forms. 

But  this  fusion  of  the  internal  and  the  external  in  a 
continuous  process  is  life.  The  object  possessing  life 
exhibits  centrality  and  also  affinity;  but  both  these  are 
definitely  subordinated  in  the  life-process  constituting 
the  living  object  itself. 

More  precisely,  centrality,  in  the  very  process  of  its 
subordination,  undergoes  development  into  higher  form; 
for  it  now  appears  not  so  much  as  an  abstract  "  within  " 
respecting  the  mere  space-relations  of  the  "body" 
through  which  life  is  manifested,  but  rather  as  the  spon- 
taneity or  inner  impulse  which  appears  in  each  and  every 
part  of  every  living  body.  And  this  impulse,  as  the 
spontaneous  effort  toward  self-preservation,  is  manifestly 
also  affinity.,  now  appearing  under  the  form  of  a  contin- 
uous process.  Even  here  it  is  worth  noticing  that  the 
term  "  affinity  "  no  longer  suffices.  The  more  complex 
aspect  of  the  process  requires  its  own  special  category; 
and  the  one  here  appropriate  is  the  familiar  name, 
"assimilation."  Whence  centrality  and  affinity  prove 
not  merely  to  belong  to  the  dead  externality  of  "mere 
matter,"  but  also  to  have  their  place  in  the  realm  of  life 


AND   ITS    SELF-CONSERVATION.  259 

as  phases  of  .one  and  the  same  process — the  process  of 
life  itself. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  same  activity  of  the  one 
all-comprising  World-Energy,  according  to  the  degree  of 
complexity  of  that  activity,  gives  rise  alike  to  "  atoms," 
to  "molecules,"  to  crystalline  forms,  and  to  the  "won," 
or  object  possessing  life.  If  "matter"  means  "sub- 
stance," and  if  substance  in  turn  means  the  divine  World- 
Energy,  then  matter  does  indeed  contain  the  "promise 
and  potency  "  of  all  life,  terrestrial  or  other.  Similarly, 
the  question  whether  the  true  theory  of  the  origin  of  life 
is  that  of  "  Biogenesis,"  or  that  of  "  Abiogenesis,"  is  evi- 
dently based  upon  a  complete  misconception  of  the  nature 
of  the  case.  Life  can  assuredly  come  only  from  the 
living.  But  the  "  living  "  is  primarily  the  World-Energy 
itself  as  absolute  Vitality.  Thus  following  next  upon 
centrality  and  affinity,  the  elementary  forms  of  life  are 
found  to  constitute  but  the  next  grade  in  advance  of 
the  simplest  developments  of  the  characteristic  of  inter- 
nality  or  spontaneity,  as  that  characteristic  is  ever  un- 
folding in  the  forms  of  the  world  in  space.  Evidently, 
therefore,  they  belong  to  the  (logically)  first  stages  of 
the  return  movement  from  externality  to  internality  in 
the  total  process  of  creative  activity,  which  the  World- 
Energy  forever  constitutes.  For  the  external  itself — 
the  whole  of  space-filling  reality — as  we  must  con- 
stantly remind  ourselves,  is  nothing  else  than  the  internal 
self-externalized — the  spontaneous  continually  expanding 
itself  into  the  inert,  only  to  gather  itself  once  more 
through  endlessly  varying  degrees  into  spontaneity  again. 

Abiogenesis  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  term  is  absurd, 
seeing  that  aside  from  life  and  its  manifestations  there 


260  THE   WOKLD-ENERGY 

is  absolutely  nothing.  Out  of  so-called  inanimate  nature 
doubtless  life  does  constantly  arise.  But  this  must  ever 
presuppose  the  World-Energy  as  the  total  divine  Life- 
Process  which  gives  itself  outer  manifestation  through  all 
the  forms  of  nature.  Doubtless  spontaneous  generation 
does  perpetually  take  place  in  the  sense  that  everywhere 
through  all  the  universe  the  mechanical  and  chemical 
relations  of  energy  in  the  physical  aspect  of  existence 
grade  insensibly  into,  and  in  their  higher  ranges  of  com- 
plexity constitute,  the  relations  of  energy  which  are 
known  under  the  name  of  physical  life. 

But  this  conception  of  life  coming  from  the  not-living 
must  forever  remain  infinitely  self-contradictory,  unless 
it  is  explicitly  recognized  that  physical  force,  as  such,  is 
absolutely  unthinkable  otherwise  than  as  the  external 
mode  of  the  internal,  spontaneous  World-Energy  which 
constitutes  the  truth  of  all  reality,  and  which,  in  its 
highest  aspect,  is  the  one  absolute,  divine  Spirit.*  We 
cannot  too  often  remind  ourselves  of  the  absolute  unity 
and  continuity  of  the  total  world  or  universe  in  all  its 
modes.  This  is  one  fundamental  aspect.  The  other  and 
complementary  aspect  is  that  of  the  infinite  multiplicity 

*The  beginner  in  philosophy  is  apt  to  stumble  over  the  word  "  thinkable1' 
because  he  confounds  thinking  with  imagining.  In  reality  one  can  think  only 
the  consistent,  the  rational.  He  can  imagine  any  monstrosity.  One  can  really 
think  only  relations,  and  truly  think  only  rational  relations.  To  think  ade- 
quately is  to  think  groups  of  relations  as  constituting  totalities,  and  ulti- 
mately, to  think  the  universe  as  the  absolute  totality  of  all  relations.  Though 
I  must  hasten  to  add,  for  the  comfort  of  readers  likely  to  be  sh6cked  by  such 
expressions,  that  by  the  phrase:  "to  think  the  universe,"  I  mean  no  more 
than  this:  To  so  far  pursue  in  thought  the  nature  of  relation  as  to  recognize 
the  necessity  of  all  relations  being  comprised  in  a  Totality  which  is  organic 
in  its  very  constitution — a  Totality  which  is  active  and  whose  activity  is  in 
accordance  with  an  "  established  order."  This,  I  must  also  add,  may  be,  and 
is,  done  in  degrees  of  adequacy  widely  different.  Need  it  be  still  further 
added  that  the  genuine  thinker  will  be  constantly  advancing  to  greater 
degrees  of  adequacy  in  his  estimate  of  this  Totality? 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  261 

and  variety  into  which  this  absolute  unity  unfolds  itself. 
The  continuous,  let  us  repeat,  does  not  exclude  the  dis- 
crete. On  the  contrary,  the  discrete  is  a  necessary  mode 
of  the  continuous.  Hence,  physical  energy,  chemical 
energy,  vital  force  or  energy,  and  the  energy  of  reason  or 
of  will,  are  all  only  so  many  modes,  so  many  degrees,  in 
and  of  one  and  the  same  total,  divine  World-Energy. 

And  now  let  us  observe  that  in  the  physical  •  aggrega- 
tion about  a  center,  in  the  chemical  compound,  and  in 
the  living  unit,  we  have  in  each  case  alike  a  limited  unit. 
But  there  is  this  difference,  that  in  the  first  class  of  units, 
so  far  as  they  are  regarded  as  mere  aggregations  of  the 
extended,  division  may  be  carried  to  any  degree  without 
change  in  the  character  of  the  unit;  while  in  the  second 
class  mechanical  division  with  the  same  result  may  be 
carried  as  far  as  the  "  molecule,"  but  can  be  carried  no 
further  without  changing  the  character  of  the  unit;  and 
finally,  ifi  the  third  class  division  means  in  general  the 
death  of  the  living  being,  which  is  a  result  quite  different 
from  the  mere  division  itself.  In  the  first  case  any  given 
quantity  of  matter  is  a  totality  wholly  indifferent  to 
division  (though  even  here  a  crystal  proves  an  excep- 
tion as,  doubtless,  ultimately  does  every  "particle "of 
matter).  In  the  second  case  a  given  quantity  of  matter, 
so  far  from  being  an  indifferent  totality,  is  known  to  have 
a  perfectly  definite  limit,  beyond  which,  if  division  is  car- 
ried, the  character  of  the  unit  is  radically  changed.  In 
the  third  case  any  division  threatens  the  existence  of  the 
unit. 

And  yet  here  a  most  significant  exception  presents 
itself.  The  living  being,  as  we  have  seen,  is  itself  a 
process.  Here,  indeed,  is  found  the  radical  distinction 


262  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

between  the  organic  and  the  inorganic  unit.  The  latter 
is  also  constituted  by  a  process.  But  in  order  that  the 
unit  may  be  preserved,  the  process  through  which  it  came 
into  existence  must  cease.  This  is  conspicuously  true  in 
case  either  of  a  crystal  or  of  a  chemical  compound.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  organic  unit,  instead  of  being  pre- 
served, is  at  once  destroyed  by  the  cessation  of  the  pro- 
cess by  which  it  came  into  existence  as  an  organic  unit. 
The  functions  which  constitute  it  as  a  living  unit  must 
continue  without  interruption  in  order  to  preserve  its 
existence  as  a  living  unit.  Thus  its  parts  are  in  more  or 
less  pronounced  degree  members  or  organs,  each  of  which 
has  a  necessary  function-  in  the  total  complex  process 
which  the  animal  itself  may  alike  be  said  to  constitute 
and  to  be  constituted  by.  Hence  the  removal  of  any  of 
its  members  so  far  deranges  the  process,  or  stops  the  pro- 
cess altogether.  And  in  any  case  the  severed  member,  in 
the  very  fact  of  its  severance,  at  once  loses  the  char- 
acteristic process  of  life  and  speedily  dissolves  into  merely 
mechanical  and  chemical  units.  Thus  the  division  of  the 
living  unit  results  necessarily  in  death,  partial  or  total. 
Death  is,  indeed,  an  aspect  necessarily  involved  in  life. 
And  it  is  so  in  this  way:  The  functional  efficiency  of  this 
or  that  portion  of  matter  included  in  the  organism  ceases. 
By  that  fact  such  portion  becomes  separated  from  the 
organism,  and  in  its  separation  loses  its  organic  character. 
That  is,  it  "dies."  And  this  "dying"  of  parts  within 
the  organism  must  continue  so  long  as  the  organism  con- 
tinues to  live;  that  is,  so  long  as  it  continues  to  be  an 
organism. 

The  apparent  exceptions  which  the  cases  of  gemma- 
tion, and  especially  of  fission,  offer  to  the  rule  that  divi- 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  263 

sion  of  the  organism  means  death  in  whole  or  in  part, 
occur  only  in  the  less  complex  forms  of  life,  where  the 
life-principle  itself  is  still  diffuse,  and  hence  presents  the 
characteristic  of  externality  in  so  marked  a  degree  that 
division  of  the  form  does  not  of  necessity  result  in  the 
destruction  of  vitality  in  either  of  the  separated  parts. 
Different  from  this  in  degree,  rather  than  in  kind,  is  the 
separation  of  the  germ,  as  well  as  of  the  offspring,  from 
the  parent  in  the  higher  forms  of  life. 

Again,  the  internality  of  life  is,  as  we  have  indicated, 
in  the  first  place  mere  impulse.  The  specialized  living 
being  is  a  limited  unit.  It  is  therefore  dependent,  and 
stands  in  necessary  relations  with  the  specialized  objects 
of  the  external  world,  in  the  midst  of  which  it  exists. 
But  as  itself  a  process,  and  as  at  the  same  time  dependent 
upon  the  world-process  surrounding  and  including  it, 
the  living  unit  must  constantly  adjust  itself  to  its  envi- 
ronment. And  its  impulse  toward  such  adjustment  is 
the  phase  of  spontaneity  or  subjectivity  which  it  has 
unfolded. 

At  the  same  time,  this  characteristic  of  spontaneity 
presents  also  a  passive  phase.  It  is  the  relatively  auto- 
matic response  which  the  living  being  makes  to  the 
exertion  upon  it,  in  any  way,  of  force  from  without. 
This  is  the  quality  of  "sensitiveness"  or  "irritability," 
which  is  exhibited  in  self-preservation — the  struggle  for 
immediate  existence  on  the  part  of  the  individual — and 
in  reproduction,  whereby  the  existence  of  the  species  is 
secured.  The  degree  in  which  the  life  of  even  the 
higher  orders  of  animals  is  limited  to  these  relatively 
mechanical  aspects,  is  far  beyond  what  seems  commonly 
supposed.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted,  by  one  who  carefully 


264  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 

considers  the  subject,  that  the  "intelligence"  of  the 
lower  animals  is  enormously  overestimated,  as  is  also 
their  sensibility.  The  facts  brought  to  light  in  biologi- 
cal investigations  appear  to  justify,  in  great  measure, 
the  Cartesian  view  that  the  animal  organism  is  an 
automaton. 

It  is  to  be  noted  further,  indeed,  that  the  living  unit 
as  thus  far  considered  is  merely  one  example  of  a  particu- 
lar type  or  species.  As  such  it  is  essentially  limited  in  its 
possibilities  of  development.  And  this  implies  that  all 
the  various  phases  of  growth  involved  in  its  nature  must 
be  completed  within  a  limited  period.  Whence  it  appears 
that  the  destiny  of  such  living  unit  is  to  fulfil  the  total 
round  of  functions  of  which  it  is  capable,  and,  even  in  so 
doing,  to  bring  to  an  end  its  own  separate  existence. 

And  yet,  though  from  its  very  nature,  the  individual 
living  (animal)  unit  must  undergo  dissolution,  it  is 
evident,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  very  process  con- 
stituting such  unit  also  involves  its  own  perpetuation  as 
type  or  species.  Though  the  individual  dies,  the  species 
survives. 

Such  is  the  general  conclusion  respecting  the  physic- 
ally constituted  living  unit.  We  have  next  to  inquire 
a  little  more  in  detail  as  to  the  process  of  development  of 
such  living  units,, 


CHAPTEK  XXV. 

FURTHER     CONSIDERATIONS     AS    TO    THE     EVOLUTION    OF 
LIFE-FORMS. 

FROM  what  has  developed  thus  far,  it  would  seem 
that  " origin"  is  a  word  which  can  have  meaning 
only  locally.  The  total  World-Energy  is  a  process  which 
is  perfect,,  eternal,  unchanging.  As  such,  all  possible 
change,  including  the  complementary  aspects  of  begin- 
ning and  ceasing,  is  perpetually  involved  in  the  World- 
Energy.  Creation,  in  its  totality,  is  the  one  eternal  Fact. 
It  is  in  the  manifold  aspects  of  Creation  that  change 
appears.  And  since  time  is  the  form  of  change,  it  is 
only  in  the  manifold  aspects  of  Creation  that  time  has 
any  reality. 

Evidently,  too,  it  is  the  aspect  of  change  that  must 
be  the  first  to  appeal  to  finite  minds.*  Hence  it  is  that 
in  all  cosmogonies  Creation  has  been  figured  as  taking 
place  in  time,  and,  therefore,  as  having  a  beginning. 
Even  Mr.  Spencer  represents  Evolution  as  a  time-process, 
and  only  guardedly  indicates  that  were  it  possible  to 
really  conceive  the  ( '  Unknowable "  in  its  totality,  it 
could  be  conceived  only  as  eternal. 

Of  course,  if  one  has  made  an  open  profession  of  the 
religion  of  agnosticism,  he  must,  if  he  would  be  at  all 

*"Mind,"  as  such,  is  infinite  in  its  very  nature.  Each  individual  created 
mind  is  finite  in  respect  of  the  degree  in  which  it  has  realized  this  infinite 
ideal  nature  common  to  all  minds. 


266  THE   WORLD-ESTERGY 

consistent,  make  at  least  occasional  confession  that 
there  really  are  limits  to  his  present  actual  knowledge; 
though  it  is  not  so  easy  to  see  why  he  should  feel 
bound  to  assert  as  something  already  certainly  known 
that  there  are  absolute  barriers  beyond  which  knowl- 
edge can  never  go.  It  may  be  further  remarked  that 
if  agnosticism  means  simply  that  no  human  being  is 
at  any  given  moment  omniscient,  doubtless  all  except 
the  insane  are,  have  always  been,  and  must  ever  be 
agnostics. 

It  is  a  curious  fact,  too,  that  agnosticism  itself  does 
not  prevent  some  of  its  votaries  from  taking  up  and 
attempting  to  solve  certain  problems  sometimes  declared 
to  be  insoluble.  Among  these  is  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  life.  And  attempts  in  this  direction  have  been 
made  in  quite  characteristic  fashion;  that 'is,  by  obser- 
vation and  ^  experiment.  Serious,  ingeniously  planned, 
and  prolonged  work  has  been  performed  in  the  labora- 
tory with  the  hope  of  artificially  producing,  if  not  a 
homunculus,  at  least  a  protogenes. 

Thus  far,  however,  from  all  experimenters  (except, 
perhaps,  one  or  two  suspected  of  being  more  eager  than 
painstaking)  there  comes  the  somewhat  disheartening 
report  that  no  really  positive  results  have  been  attained. 
And  the  reports  are  the  more  disheartening  since  organic 
matter  has  been  presupposed  (that  is,  it  has  been  actu- 
ally present)  in  these  very  experiments. 

Not,  indeed,  that  there  have  been  no  encouraging 
signs.  On  the  contrary,  more  and  more  complex  com- 
pounds have  been  built  up,  and  these  approach  more 
and  more  nearly  to,  not  merely  organic,  but  even  to 
really  organized  matter. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEBVATION.  267 

It  is  important  to  observe,  too,  that  the  very  nature 
of  the  experiments  seems  to  suggest  a  doubt  as  to 
whether  it  is  at  all  likely  that  there  should  ever  be 
perfectly  reproduced  in  a  test-tube  the  entire  complex 
of  conditions  precedent  to  the  transition  of  inorganic 
into  organic  matter,  even  though  such  conditions  actu- 
ally exist  in  nature  as  a  whole.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note 
that  even  apparent  success  on  the  part  of  the  experi- 
menter must  evidently  be,  if  not  neutralized,  at  least 
greatly  discredited,  by  the  fact  that  he  has  made  use  of 
organic  matter  in  his  very  attempt  to  demonstrate  the 
development  of  the  organic  from  the  inorganic.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  evident  that  failure  on  the  part 
of  the  experimenter  can  never  prove  that  the  actual 
transition  of  inorganic  into  organic  matter  is  impossible 
in  nature.  Until  man  can  manipulate  nature  as  a  whole 
in  his  experiments,  he  can  never  be  justified  in  making 
empirically  grounded  assertions  as  to  what  is  impossible 
in  nature  as  a  whole. 

At  the  same  time,  as  the  whole  argument  of  the 
present  volume  has  tended  to  show,  all  nature  is  noth- 
ing else  than  the  manifold  expression  of  the  World- 
Energy  as  Spirit.  That  is,  Nature  as  a  whole  is  but 
the  outer,  organic  aspect  of  the  perfect  Thought.  Only 
as  such  can  it  be  rightly  understood;  that  is,  understood 
at  all. 

But,  now,  what  follows?  Nothing  less,  it  seems  to 
me,  than  the  complete  reconciliation  (already  pointed 
out)  of  the  two  opposing  views  as  to  the  origin  of  life. 
Biogenesis,  the  theory  that  life  can  come  only  from  the 
living,  finds  its  full  justification  in  the  fact  that  all 
nature  is  instinct  with  the  Life  of  the  World-Energy — 


268  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

is,  in  fact,  as  we  have  seen,  nothing  else  than  the  outer, 
organic  aspect  of  that  Life.  From  which  it  is  evident 
that  the  difference  between  organic  and  inorganic  mat- 
ter is  merely  one  of  degree.  Thus  the  theory  of  Abio- 
genesis,  the  theory  that  life  may  come  from  the  not-liv- 
ing, is  itself  but  a  special  aspect  of  Biogenesis  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  latter  term. 

There  is,  then,  nothing  contradictory  in  the  thought 
that  organisms  not  only  arose,  but  are  forever  arising,  out 
of  "inorganic"  matter.  For  inorganic  matter  itself, 
when  seen  in  its  vital  relation  within  the  Universe  as 
a  whole,  consists  of  nothing  else  than  the  more  element- 
ary of  the  infinitely  manifold  thought-forms  constituting 
the  Universe.  Looked  at  in  this  way,  it  is  evident  that 
nature  tends  inevitably  to  unfold  into  the  more  adequate 
thought-forms  which  we  know  as  organisms.  Thus  we 
arrive  at  what  may  be  called  an  organic  view  of  nature 
as  constituting  the  elementary  phase  of  the  vital,  and, 
in  its  total  range,  forever  self-equal  process  of  creation. 
Whence  it  would  seem  that  the  transition  of  inorganic 
into  organic  matter  is  itself  a  ceaseless  aspect  of  the  eternal 
process  -of  Creation.  Doubtless  in  the  evolution  of  each 
planet,  where  the  conditions  rendering  life  possible  are 
reached  at  all,  there  is  a  definite  moment  *  of  transition 
from  not-living  matter  to  living  matter;  while  at  the  same 
time,  in  the  creative  process  as  a  whole,  that  "  moment " 
is  eternalized  in  the  ceaseless  evolution  of  worlds. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  resenting  the  work  of  such  men 
as  Spencer,  and  Darwin  and  Haeckel,  and  angrily  declar- 
ing them  to  be  undermining  all  grounds  of  faith  while 

*  The  "  moment  "  being  continuous  so  long  as  the  conditions  favorable 
to  such  transition  continue  to  be  the  same  anywhere  on  the  given  planet. 


AND  ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  269 

engaged  in  the  mad  effort  to  run  down  an  ignis  fatuus, 
it  would  seem  wiser  to  note  what  there  is  of  truth  in 
their  work,  and  to  gladly  accept  it  as  opening  up  to  us 
a  wider  view  of  creation  as  the  infinitely  complex,,  but' 
absolutely  organic  Process  of  the  self-revelation  of  the 
divine  World-Energy.  If  these  men  have  themselves 
stopped  short  of  seeing  the  full  significance  of  their  own 
discoveries,  that  surely  is  no  ground  for  withholding  our 
glad  and  grateful  acceptance  of  the  aspects  of  truth 
which  those  discoveries  unfold.  So  far,  indeed,  from 
proving  that  the  conception  of  creation  is  a  false  con- 
ception, their  work  really  turns  out  to  be  on  the  contrary 
an  improved  calculus,  enabling  us  to  attain  a  clearer  and 
more  adequate  estimate  of  the  infinite  range  and  fault- 
less method  of  creation. 

Crude  in  many  ways,  doubtless,  this  improved  calculus 
still  is.  The  discoverer  is  such  precisely  through  his 
attainment  to  a  new  attitude  as  toward  the  Truth.  He 
is  in  part,  but  not  wholly,  prepared  to  receive  the 
stronger  and  more  varied  light  with  which  this  new  atti- 
tude of  his  brings  him  face  to  face.  Hence  is  it  that 
while  his  vision  is  extended  and  clarified  to  a  degree  more 
or  less  marvelous  to  his  contemporaries,  it  is  afterward 
seen  that  with  this  sudden  access  of  light  he  was  also 
partly  or  wholly  blinded  to  certain  aspects  of  the  general 
truth  which  he  was  the  first  to  clearly  recognize  in  its 
larger  characteristics. 

The  discoverers  in  the  special  field  of  Evolution  could 
not  be  expected  to  prove  exceptions  to  this  general  rule. 
Intent  mainly  upon  the  empirical  evidences  of  the  actual 
evolution  of  the  earth  and  of  the  organic  forms  inhabit- 
ing the  earth,  it  is  hardly  surprising  that  for  a  time  at 


270  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

least  the  question  of  the  ultimate  Cause  involved  in  the 
process  of  evolution  should  seem  to  them  too  remote  and 
shadowy  to*  have  in  it  the  promise  of  any  positive  solu- 
tion; though,  as  we  have  seen,  Mr.  Spencer  is  too  much 
a  philosopher  to  stop  short  of  at  least  an  intimation  of 
the  fact  that  there  lies  in  the  human  mind  the  necessity 
of  considering  and  attempting  to  solve  that  ultimate 
problem. 

Darwin,  on  the  other  hand,  deliberately  held  aloof 
from  this  problem;  and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that 
in  this  he  did  wisely.  He  had  attempted  a  special  task 
which  must  tax  to  the  utmost  even  his  exceptional  powers 
for  a  lifetime.  And  this  task  could  be  performed  while 
yet  the  larger  problem  was  relatively  in  abeyance.  Never- 
theless, so  long  as  the  larger  problem  of  Evolution  in  its 
universal  aspects  remained  but  partly  resolved,  or  was 
left  out  of  account  in  the  consideration  of  the  special 
problem  of  organic  evolution,  this  latter  problem  itself 
could  not  but  prove  insoluble  in  its  most  elementary  as 
well  as  in  its  most  complex  phases.  Variation  in  typical 
forms  might  be  accounted  for  while  yet  the  beginnings 
of  life,  as  well  as  the  culminating  aspects  of  life,  still 
remained  to  all  appearance  inexplicable. 

And  yet  it  is  this  fact,  as  it  seems  to  me,  which  more 
than  any  other  has  caused  the  Darwinian  theory  to  be 
persistently  regarded  by  many  as  something  purely  hypo- 
thetical and  even  fanciful,  in  spite  of  the  overwhelming 
accummulation  of  empirical  evidence  showing  that  specific 
types  have  always  been  unstable,  and  that  there  has 
been  actual  transition  of  inferior  types  into  superior 
types  through  continued  variations, —  these  variations 
being  due  in  ever-increasing  degree  to  the  spontaneity 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  271 

of  function  in  the  organism,  though  primarily  such 
function  must  have  received  its  definiteness  of  direction 
from  the  "  environment." 

What  is  of  special  significance  here  is,  that  so  long  as 
the  environment  was  regarded  as  merely  an  aggregate  of 
physical  forces,  it  was  impossible  to  avoid  a  feeling  that 
somehow  the  difficulty  which  presented  itself  in  face  of 
the  new  view  respecting  the  origin  of  Life,  and  even  of 
the  variations  of  structure  and  of  function  in  organisms, 
had  received  little  more  than  a  mythical  treatment.  It 
is,  in  fact,  only  when  we  come  to  regard  the  physical 
world  as  itself  but  the  outer  mode  of  the  spiritual,  only 
when  we  come  to  regard  "things"  as  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  the  expression  of  thought  (aspects,  that  is,  of 
the  perfect  Thought  which  constitutes  the  Method  of 
Creation),  that  the  "environment"  assumes  a  really 
intelligible  character.  *  For  then  in  any  given  case  the 
"environment"  itself  must  appear  to  us  as  nothing  else 
and  nothing  less  than  a  more  or  less  complex  phase  in 
the  concrete  unfolding  of  the  divine  creative  Energy, 
conformity  to  the  Method  of  which  means  increased  ade- 
quacy of  life;  antagonism  with  which  means  and  can 
only  mean  degradation  of  life;  continued  antagonism  with 
which  can  mean  nothing  less  than  final  extinction ;  that 
is,  the  utter  dissolution  of  the  organism  as  organism. 

It  is  in  and  through  the  World-Energy,  then,  that 
whatever  of  Life  we  know  or  can  ever  hope  to  know 
must  have  its  origin.  In  other  words,  Life  comes  from 
the  living  and,  from  this  point  of  view,  it  can  come 
from  nothing  else. 

*  In  fact,  we  can  really  think  nothing  else  than  thought.  And  when  we 
think  out  the  "laws  of  nature,"  those  laws  are  by  that  very  fact  proven  to 
be  nothing  else  than  modes  of  thought. 


272  THE   WORLD-ENEBGY 

But  doubtless  also  any  living  unit  can  originate  only 
in  conformity  with  the  Method  of  the  World-Energy,  a 
Method  which  has  already  been  shown  in  the  present  vol- 
ume to  be  the  Method  of  Reason.  It  is,  in  fact,  no  other 
than  that  Method  of  which  scientists  have  for  a  long 
time  been  so  industriously  and  successfully  tracing  out 
the  rudimentary  aspects  under  the  name  of  the  "Laws 
of  Nature."  .  It  is  that  Method  the  logical  order  of 
which  is  vaguely  intimated  in  the  now  hackneyed  phrase, 
"from  the  simple  to  the  complex."  In  other  words,  the 
Method  of  the  World-Energy  presents  itself  to  us  as  the 
absolute  Method  of  Evolution,  in  which  creation  takes 
place  with  unfailing  logical  sequence.  Everywhere  there 
is  absolute  order,  unbending  law.  Any  degree  of  complex- 
ity in  a  given  unit,  whether  organic  or  inorganic,  necessa- 
rily presupposes  that  such  unit  has  come  to  be  what  it  is 
only  by  a  progressive  development,  the  stages  of  which 
have  a  fixed  order.  And  such  unit  can  attain  to  any 
further  degree  of  complexity  only  by  passing  through  a 
further  series  of  stages  equally  unalterable  in  their  serial 
relation.  Nature  leaps  no  chasms,  only  because  "  Nature" 
is  but  the  outer  manifestation  of  Reason.  And  just  as 
Nature  is  the  outer  form  of  Reason,  so  Reason  is  the 
inner  substance,  the  vital  principle  of  Nature.  It  is  to 
the  Totality  of  which  these  are  the  complementary  aspects 
that  I  have  applied  the  term  World-Energy,  and  by 
which  I  mean :  the  one  Substance,  the  primal  Cause,  the 
Logos,  "without  which  was  not  anything  made  that  hath 
been  made." 

But  if  Nature  is  to  be  regarded  as  but  the  more  ele- 
mentary aspect  of  the  Word',  that  is,  the  outer  form  or 
expression,  of  the  Logos  or  divine  Reason,  then  there  is 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  273 

nothing  to  forbid,  rather  there  is  everything  to  encour- 
age, the  view  that  each  more  complex  species  of  organism 
arose  by  development  from  a  less  complex  species, 
and  this  in  turn  from  a  species  still  less  complex,  and 
so  on  until  we  reach  the  limit  of  simplicity  in  the 
organic  world  and  discover  it  to  be  a  primal  type  of 
units  without  specialized  organs,  and  distinguished 
from  inorganic  matter  only  in  possessing  the  charac- 
teristics of  "irritability"  and  "contractility."  And  by 
"irritability"  we  can  scarcely  understand  anything 
else  to  be  meant  than  the  most  rudimentary  phase  of 
the  inner  quality  of  self -movement;  while  "contrac- 
tility" can  hardly  mean  anything  else  than  the  most 
rudimentary  phase  of  the  outer  expression  of  self -move- 
ment, or  life. 

Nor  can  we,  as  it  seems  to  me,  without  ceasing  to 
really  think,  resist  the  further  logical  conclusion  that 
just  as  all  more  complex  organisms  on  each  inhabited 
sphere  must  have  descended  from  a  primal  type  of  units 
that,  though  organic,  were  yet  not  organized;  so  these 
latter  units  themselves  arose  out  of  the  most  complex 
phase  of  inorganic  matter;  which  in  turn  must  have 
developed  from  the  commingling  of  still  simpler  ele- 
ments in  the  laboratory  of  nature — however  impossible  it 
may  be  to  verify  all  this  in  a  test-tube. 

Thus  it  appears  that  we  may,  with  equal  truth,  de- 
clare both  that  Life  comes  from  the  living,  and  that  it 
comes  from  the  not-living.  For,  while  on  the  one  hand, 
the  particular  units  of  the  inorganic  world  which  come 
to  be  aggregated  into  an  organism  are  not  themselves 
living  units,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  never  to  be 
forgotten  that  they  have  no  existence  save  as  modes  of 


274  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

manifestation  of  the  Life  of  the  total  World-Energy. 
Looked  at  in  its  merely  physical  aspects,  this  is  doubtless 
a  purely  mechanical  view  of  nature;*  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  are  equally  justified  in  saying  that  "in  our 
study  of  natural  objects  we  are  approaching  the  thoughts 
of  the  Creator,  reading  his  conceptions,  interpreting  a 
system  that  is  his  and  not  ours."t 

The  following  further  suggestions  are  added  as  possible 
clews  to  the  more  precise  interpretation  of  organic  evolu- 
tion. The  first  suggestion  is:  That  wherever  the  environ- 
ment or  complex  of  natural  conditions  is  the  same  it  could 
hardly  be  but  that  the  same  organic  type  should  be 
developed.  And  this  not  merely  on  one  planet,  but  on 
any  planet,  whatever  its  location  in  space.  So  also,  on 
the  other  hand,  wherever  the  conditions  vary,  the  organic 
type  developed  must  vary  in  corresponding  degree.  And 
since  the  World-Energy  can  be  conceived  only  as  in- 
finitely rich  in  its  Method,  it  is  evident  that  Creation 
must  be  inexhaustible  in  the  variety  of  forms  through 
which  that  Method  is  forever  unfolded  into  its  infinitely 
rich  actuality.  But,  again,  for  any  particular  sphere,  as 
'our  own  world,  the  conditions  —  that  is,  the  special 
aspects  of  the  World-Energy  constituting  the  environ- 
ment —  cannot  but  present  a  limited  range  in  so  far  as 
they  are  productive  of-  special  physical  forms  which  are 
organic  to  Life.  In  other  words,  the  types  of  organisms 
cannot  but  be  limited  in  number  and  in  variability.  At 
the  same  time,  with  the  increasing  specialization  of  the 

*  "  Die  Erkenntniss  1st  beendigt,  wenn  es  als  die  nothwendige  Folge  be- 
stimmter  Ursacheii  sich  nachweisen  lasst.  Dieses  ursachliche  Erkenuen 
uennenwirim  Gebiete  des  Stofflichen  auch  ein  mechanistisches,  etc."  Nae- 
geli:  "  Mechardsch-physiologische  Theorie  der  Abstammungslehre."  S.  8. 

t  Agassiz.  "  Methods  of  Study  in  Natural  History.''1    llth  ed.  p.  14. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  275 

earth  itself,  through  its  own  condensation  and  conse- 
quent increasing  tension  of  energy  throughout  its  mass, 
the  differences  in  the  conditions  of  life  on  its  surface 
must  have  continuously  become,  and  cannot  for  an  indefi- 
nitely extended  future  cease  to  become,  more  and  more 
pronounced.  And,  as  already  suggested,  and  as  elabor- 
ately shown  in  Darwin's  writings,  the  continuance  of  life 
for  any  type  of  organisms  is  possible  only  through  the 
continuous  adaptation  of  the  organisms  constituting  the 
type  to  their  environment.  Or,  as  Mr.  Spencer  puts  it: 
"  Life  is  the  continuous  adjustment  of  internal  relations 
to  external  relations."*  And  this  adaptation  must  keep 
pace  with  whatever  changes  the  environment  itself  under- 
goes. Similarly,  those  that  fail  of  such  adaptation  can 
not  but  become  extinct.  Fitness  to  survive  consists  in 
fullest  correspondence  on  the  part  of  the  living  unit  to 
the  aspects  of  Reason  constituting  the  environment  of 
such  unit.  Since  such  environment  is  itself  a  process, 
and  since  it  is  a  constantly  varying  complex  of  condi- 
tions, it  is  evident  that  the  types  of  organisms  existing 
in  the  midst  of  and  dependent  upon  that  constantly 
varying  complex  of  conditions,  must  undergo  equally 
constant  and  corresponding  variations  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  their  survival.  The  variation  of  the  type 
that  survives  can  be  measured  by  no  less  a  standard 
than  that  of  the  variation  in  the  environment  itself.  The 
longer  the  period  the  greater  must  be  the  variation  in 
the  environment,  and  hence  the  greater  the  variation 
in  the  organic  types  involved.  The  environment  is, 
indeed,  not  merely  something  else  than  the  given  unit 
determined  by  the  environment.  It  is  also,  and  far  more, 

*  "Principles  of  Biology,"  (N.  Y.  Ed.)  I.,  80. 


276  THE   WORLD-ENEBGY 

a  complex  of  conditions  focusing  itself  into,  and  unfold- 
ing as,  that  given  unit;  just  as  an  image  on  a  screen  is 
not  something  else  than  the  light,  but  just  the  light  itself 
developed  in  one  particular  mode. 

The  conception,  then,  of  the  variation  of  organic 
species  in  nature  —  even  to  the  development  of  more 
from  less  complex  species — so  far  from  being  in  conflict 
with  the  highest  conception  of  a  divine  order  of  the 
world,  would  seem  to  be  itself  a  necessary  aspect  of  any 
really  consistent  view  we  can  form  of  a  divine  or  rational 
World-Order.  It  is  demanded  by  the  very  principle  of 
Continuity  itself,  and  cannot  be  got  rid  of,  as  it  seems 
to  me,  in  any  other  way  than  by  renouncing  all  claim 
that  the  world  is  a  world  of  established  order,  rather 
than  a  world  of  chance ;  that  is,  by  admitting  that  the 
world  whose  order  is  one  we  are  persistently  endeavoring 
to  think  out  is  really  a  world  in  which  thought  is  not 
only  superfluous,  but  impossible. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  carefully  noted  that  the 
"  variation  "  is  something  which  takes  place  on  the  part 
of  individuals  within  a  given  type,  while  tjie  type  in 
its  largest  significance  is  itself  invariable.  Nor  can  the 
variation  of  any  individual  or  series  of  individuals  within 
a  type  ever  carry  such  individual  or  individuals  beyond 
the  type.  The  truth  discovered  by  von  Baer,  that  all 
animals  originate  from  eggs  which  at  first  are  identical 
in  substance  and  structure,  is  of  utmost  importance;  for 
it  points  distinctly  to  a  genuine  simplest  grade  of  organic 
matter,  a  proto-plasm,  out  of  which  all  types  of  animals 
primarily  arose.  So  also,  as  Agassiz  insists,  it  is  of  the 
utmost  significance  that  "  each  egg  has  such  tenacity  of 
its  individual  principle  of  life  that  no  egg  was  ever 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION".  277 

known  to  swerve  from  the  pattern  of  the  parent  animal 
that  gave  it  birth"* — only,  the  "pattern"  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  that  general,  unchangeable  type 
within  which  the  individual  —  nay,  countless  genera- 
tions of  individuals — may  and  must  vary  in  their  ceaseless 
struggle  for  that  degree  of  existence  in  which  the  type 
is  most  fully  realized.  Doubtless  no  egg  that  owes 
its  parentage  to  a  vertebrate  can  ever  develop  into  any 
other  than  a  vertebrate  animal.  But  this  does  not  in  the 
least  invalidate  the  conception  that  while  in  one  locality 
of  the  primitive  world  the  eggs  of  the  primal  vertebrate 
were  developing  in  the  direction  of  the  fish,  in  another 
locality  where  the  conditions  were  different  the  eggs  of 
the  primal  vertebrate  were  developing  in  the  direction  of 
the  mammal.  Thus  proceeded,  as  it  would  seem,  the 
differentiation  of  the  primal  "generalized"  (that  is,  as 
yet  for  the  earth  unspecialized)  type  of  vertebrate  animals; 
and  always  it  proceeded  in  accordance  with,  as.  the  pro- 
gressive realization  of,  the  perfect  plan,  the  unalterable 
method,  by  which  the  divine  World-Energy  is  forever 
unfolding  itself  in  Creation  as  a  whole. 

It  may  very  well  be  that  there  are  "sundry  traits  in 
common,"  as  between  certain  molluscoid  animals  and  the 
lowest  vertebrate  animal,  f  *But  this  is  only  to  say  that 
the  nearer  we  approach  the  beginning  point  in  the 
development  of  animal  forms  on  the  earth,  the  more 
manifest  is  the  homogeneity  characterizing  those  forms. 
In  other  words,  it  simply  indicates  their  common  origin 
in  an  undifferentiated  animal  unit  already  developing  in 
myriad  duplications  in  the  primal  sea. 

*  "Methods  of  Study  in  Natural  History,''1  p.  29. 

t  Herbert  Spencer:    "Principles  of  Biology,"  II.,  567. 


278  THE  WOKLD-EtfERGY 

On  the  other  hand,  none  could  protest  more  vigorously 
than  would  the  evolutionist  himself  against  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  vertebrate  type  as  such  is  an  off  shoot  of  the 
molluscan  type  as  such.  That  would  be  substantially  to 
deny  the  existence  of  that  "  established  order  "  of  the 
world  upon  which  Mr.  Spencer  insists,  and  which  I 
should  prefer  to  call  the  rational  Method  of  Creation, 
without  which  science  itself  must  be  wholly  impossible. 

And  now,  not  to  extend  this  statement  beyond  what 
is  necessary  to  indicate  clearly  the  contrast  between  the 
real  significance  of  organic  evolution  and  the  mythical 
significance  popularly  attached  to  it,  I  will  only  add  a 
word  in  reference  to  the  tender  point  of  man's  own 
origin.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  evolutionist  really 
supposes  that  the  initial  primate  was  any  more  an  ape 
than  it  was  a  man.*  In  fact,  it  was  not  sufficiently 
advanced  (differentiated)  to  be  either  ape  or  man.  What 
the  theory  of  evolution  really  claims  is:  that  apes  and 
men  have  alike  descended  from  an  animal  with  general 
characteristics  at  once  manlike  and  apelike;  but  not  so 
far  developed  as  to  be  specifically  and  in  fact  either  the 
one  or  the  other.  It  was  potentially  both;  actually, 
neither.  Developed  in  the  one  direction,  it  gave  rise 
to  apes;  developed  in  the  other  direction,  it  gave  rise 
to  men.  And  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  primitive 
apes  were  far  from  being  the  same  as  the  apes  of  to-day, 
and  that  primitive  men  were  still  farther  from  being 
the  same  as  the  men  of  to-day.  Let  us  note  further  that 
these  two  "directions"  of  development  are  radii  from 

*  Some  color  is  given  to  the  popular  illusion  that  "  Darwinism  "  means 
mainly  " the  descent  of  man  from  apes"  by  an  occasional  unguarded  state- 
ment in  works  by  pronounced  evolutionists— as,  for  example,  in  Romanes' 
important  contribution  to  the  subject  under  the  title:  "  Mental  Evolution  in 
Man."  ' 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  279 

the  same  (logical)  point.  Whence  it  is  evident  that  from 
the  very  outset  the  ape  type  and  the  human  type 
were  necessarily  divergent,  and  that,  therefore,  neither 
could  by  any  possibility  have  descended  from  the  other. 
However  complex  the  "pattern/'  the  threads  in  the 
great  loom  of  Creation  never  become  tangled.  Or,  to 
change  the  figure,  Nature  is  the  perfect  "  logical  ma- 
chine." But  it  is  so  only  because  it  is  nothing  else 
than  the  outer  form,  the  infinitely  extended  self-mani- 
festation of  the  Logos,  or  divine  Reason. 

Many  professed  evolutionists,  indeed,  would  stop  short 
of  this  latter  statement,  though  they  would  concur 
heartily  in  the  affirmation  of  a  fixed  order  as  the  very 
core  of  any  rational  theory  of  evolution.  It  is  the  more 
amazing,  therefore,  that  Agassiz  should  have  antagonized 
the  doctrine  of  organic  evolution  on  the  ground  that  it 
implies  the  descent  of  vertebrate  animals  from  the  special- 
ized types  of  invertebrate  animals  —  in  other  words,  that 
it  assumes  the  arbitrary  intermingling  of  types.  And  this 
missing  of  the  central  thread  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
by  such  a  man  is  no  less  unfortunate  than  amazing,  since 
his  "  Methods  of  Study  in  Natural  History,"  embodying 
as  it  does  his  (mis-) interpretation  of  the  only  doctrine  of 
organic  evolution  that  Darwin  or  any  other  real  scientist 
ever  advanced,  has  been,  in  America  at  least,  the  one 
authoritative  text-book  seemingly  justifying  those  who 
hate  Darwinism  because  they  have  never  understood  it, 
and  who  refuse  to  make  any  effort  to  understand  it 
because  they  hate  it. 

We  come  now  to  a  further  suggestion.  It  is:  That 
primarily  the  conditions  of  life  on  any  sphere  that  comes 
to  be  inhabited  at  all  must  be  practically  uniform  over 


280  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

a  large  extent  of  the  surface  of  that  sphere.  From  which 
we  cannot  but  conclude  that  the  transition  of  inorganic 
into  organic  matter  on  the  earth  must  have  taken  place 
simultaneously  over  wide  areas.  In  other  words,  the 
center  of  the  creation  of  organisms  is  not  a  geometrical 
center,  but  a  rational  or  logical  center.  It  is  not  one 
exclusive  locality  in  space,  but  only  a  center  in  kind. 
Physical  identity  is  necessarily  local  and  particular. 
Logical  or  rational  identity  is  universal,  and,  as  such,  is 
without  relation  to  space.  That  is,  centrality  in  kind 
is  wholly  indifferent  to  space  as  such,  and  consists  only 
of  the  grouping  of  such  conditions  as  tend  to  the  develop- 
ment of  units  bearing  certain  generic  or  typical  marks. 
The  unit  is  a  particular  case  of  the  more  or  less  adequate 
realization  of  the  universal  or  typical  "plan;"  whether 
the  "  plan"  be  that  of  a  star,  or  a  crystal,  or  a  plant,  or 
an  animal,  or  a  soul.  Thus  in  this  higher,  concrete 
sense,  centrality  is  seen  to  be  co-extensive  with  space  from 
the  very  fact  that  it  is  indifferent  to  space.  No  doubt 
each  particular  instance  must  be  localized  in  space.  But 
it  is  equally  evident  that  wherever  in  space  the  conditions 
are  favorable  to  the  development  of  units  of  any  given 
type,  there  is  the  center  of  creation  for  that  type.  And 
no  matter  at  how  many  or  at  what  remote  points  in  space 
this  grouping  of  conditions  may  occur,  each  point  is 
equally  the  center  of  creation  for  the  given  type. 

Again,  one  must  be  on  his  guard  with  reference  to 
another  point  also.  It  is  this  :  The  arising  of  a  given 
type  is  no  more  a  matter  of  time,  than  it  is  a  matter  of 
space.  Time,  as  was  seen  at  the  outset,  is  nothing 
else  than  the  abstract  form  of  change.  Hence  it  is  by 
no  means  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  "origin"  or 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  281 

process  of  coming  into  existence  of  any  given  type 
should  be  something  which  has  occurred  but  once  in 
an  infinitely  extended  duration.  On  the  contrary, 
such  origination  must  occur  whenever  as  well  as  wher- 
ever the  conditions  favorable  to  such  process  become 
focused  into  reality.  In  fact,  as  already  intimated,  just 
this  focusing  of  "favorable  conditions"  is  itself  the 
process  of  the  origination  of  the  units  constituting  the 
type.  And,  as  the  argument  of  the  present  volume 
goes  to  show,  the  order  here,  though  necessarily  chrono- 
logical locally,  is  and  can  be  only  logical  for  the  Universe 
as  a  whole,  seeing  that  in  the  Universe  as  a  whole  every 
phase  of  existence  possible  to  a  rational  world  must  be 
perpetual.  That  is,  in  the  Universe  as  a  whole  the 
"moment"  of  creation  for  each  type  must  be  eternal, 
just  as  the  "center"  of  creation  for  each  type  must  be 
co-extensive  with  space. 

Such  is  the  second  suggestion  jn  its  universal  and 
more  abstract  form.  The  special  application  it  is  in- 
tended to  lead  up  (or  down)  to  is:  That  the  same  phase 
of  organic  differentiation  must  have  occurred  simultan- 
eously over  more  or  less  widely  extended  areas,  as  also 
(and  especially  in  case  of  land  animals)  over  more  or 
less  widely  separated  areas  of  the  earth  —  the  type  in 
any  given  case  remaining  essentially  the  same  throughout 
the  given  area  or  areas  so  long  as  the  environment 
remained  substantially  the  same  over  such  area  or 
areas. 

Whether  in  the  history  of  the  earth  such  coincidence 
of  environment  actually  existed  over  areas  widely  separ- 
ated from  each  other,  is  of  course  a  question  to  be  decided 
upon  geological  evidence.  And  such  evidence  is  not 


282  THE  WORLD-ENERGY 

absolutely  wanting.  Besides  the  a  priori  consideration 
that  all  beginnings  are  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
characterized  by  homogeneity,,  there  are  the  familiar  facts 
of  the  abundant  remains  of  subtropical  flora  and  fauna, 
even  those  of  high  orders  and  therefore  of  a  relatively 
late  period,,  in  regions  where  now  their  development 
would  be  impossible.  It  would  seem,,  then,  that  we  have 
here  a  clue  to  the  simplest  possible  explanation  of  the 
coincident  existence  of  the  same  species  of  organisms  in 
regions  so  widely  separated  as  to  make  the  hypothesis 
of  migration  from  either  area  to  the  other  very  difficult 
to  accept,  especially  in  those  cases  where  oceanic  barriers 
intervene  —  ingenious  and  plausible  as  is  Darwin's  argu- 
ment in  support  of  such  possibility.* 

In  this  connection,  too,  it  would  seem  that  we  have 
here  a  possible  clue  to  the  primary  cause  of  the  extreme 
differences  as  between  one  and  another  of  the  races  of 
man.  On  the  hypothesis  here  suggested  these  differ- 
ences would  be  due,  not  merely  to  differences  of  climatic 
conditions  working  through  indefinite  periods  upon 
descendants  from  the  same  ancestors.  On  the  contrary, 
they  would  be  due  primarily  to  inherited  peculiarities 
running  back  through  lines  of  ancestry  that  were  distinct 
possibly  from  the  very  beginnings  of  life  on  the  earth. 
And  this,  it  may  be  remarked  by  the  way,  seems  to  pre- 
sent a  possible  ground  of  reconciliation  as  between  the 
views  of  Darwin  and  those  of  Agassiz  respecting  the 
mode  of  origination  of  the  human  race,  since  it  would 
show  that  instead  of  their  hypotheses  respecting  the 

*  Darwin  was  certainly  mistaken  when  he  assumed  that  the  hypothesis 
of  the  simultaneous  arising  of  the  same  species  at  many  points  of  the  earth's 
surface  is  equivalent  to  calling  in  the  "  agency  of  a  miracle."  See  "  Origin  of 
Species,"  (N.  Y.  Ed.)  p.  330. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION".  283 

"descent  of  man"  being  mutually  exclusive,  those 
hypotheses  are  in  reality  but  different  threads  of  the 
same  fabric  of  truth. 

Evidently,  too,  in  case  the  several  races  of  men  orig- 
inated separately  in  the  manner  above  indicated,  it  would 
seem  extremely  probable  that  the  human  type  was  realized 
within  some  one  more  or  less  extended  area  long  ages 
before  the  actual  development  of  that  type  in  any  other 
area;  the  earlier  development  in  the  one  region  being 
due,  primarily,  to  gradual  changes  through  which  the 
environment  there  became  relatively  more .  stimulating 
in  the  direction  of  mental  activity.  And  it  is  not 
wholly  without  significance  in  this  connection  that  the 
region  in  which  the  Aryan  race  has  been  found  as  far 
back  in  time  as  it  can  be  traced,  is  a  region  in  which 
such  change  in  the  environment  actually  took  place. 
If,  indeed,  we  were  to  follow  up  the  clew  here  pre- 
sented, and  to  suppose  that  the  Aryan  race  arose 
through  a  Darwinian  autochthon  over  the  greater  part 
of  the  area  which  they  have  inhabited  from  the  earliest 
known  period,  we  would  also  have  in  this  hypothesis 
the  simple  natural  settlement  of  the  controversy  as  to 
whether  this  race  was  of  Asiatic  or  of  European  origin. 
And  thus,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  the  "either — or" 
would  here  prove  to  be  but  a  restless,  if  not  profitless, 
oscillation  between  the  two  complementary  aspects  of 
the  one  real  truth.  In  such  case,  too,  the  "race"  thus 
originating  would  really  develop  as  a  race  from  the 
gradual  fusion  of  a  multitude  of  tribes  originally  in 
isolation,  and  of  more  or  less  contrasted  characteristics, 
the  language  of  the  most  intellectual  tribe  gradually 
becoming  (with  dialectic  differences)  the  language  of 


284  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

the  entire  race.  And  this  would  be  quite  in  keeping 
with  the  remark  of  Prof.  Sayce*  that  "For  anything  we 
know,  the  parent- Aryan  may  have  been  the  language  of 
a  race  essentially  different  from  that  to  which  we  belong; 
indeed,  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  was  spoken  by  more 
than  one  race/' 

And  now,  allowing  that  the  hypothesis  presented  in 
this  second  suggestion  should  be  found  to  be  justified 
by  the  facts,  when  once  (if  ever)  the  facts  come  to  be 
adequately  known,  it  would  seem  to  contain  an  intima- 
tion of  the  .primary  reason  why  at  the  present  day  the 
various  races  of  man  present  such  striking  contrasts  in 
the  degrees  of  civilization  wliicli  they  have  severally  at- 
tained. I  do  not  forget,  or  lightly  esteem,  the  fact  that 
the  existing  differences  are  far  greater  than  those  separat- 
ing race  from  race  three  or  four  thousand  years  ago;  nor 
do  I  forget,  or  lightly  esteem,  the  fact  that  the  increased 
superiority  of  the  more  advanced  races  is  due,  mainly, 
to  their  own  superior  self-activity.  But  the  real  ques- 
tion would  seem 'to  be  this:  How  came  the  superior 
races  to  be  superior  primarily?  To  what  could  this  be 
due,  if  not  to  an  earlier  start  in  the  human  degree  of 
life  ?  And  what  could  be  the  cause  of  this  earlier  start 
unless  it  be  the  greater  stimulus  of  a  more  favorable 
environment  ? 

'"Modern  "man  has  reduced  nature  to  the  grade  of 
mere  instrumentality.  "Ancient"  man  bowed  in  fear 
before  the  various  aspects  of  nature,  worshiping  them 
as  gods.  But  by  "  ancient "  man  we  who  use  the  term 
commonly  mean  the  "primitive  "  men  who  were  our  own 
forefathers.  On  the  other  hand,  the  "  ancient  "  men  of 

*" Science  of  Language,"  II.,  122. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSEKVATION.  285 

other  races  seem  to  have  scarcely  emerged  even  yet  from 
their  "primitive"  condition.  From  which  it  would  seem 
to  be  easy  to  account  for  the  otherwise  startling  simian 
marks  which  some  of  the  races  still  exhibit.  It  may  also 
be  remarked,  finally,  that  upon  the  hypothesis  here  indi- 
cated it  would  seem  that  Malthus  failed  to  seize  the  true, 
perspective  of  history.  The  multiplicity  of  ancestry, 
the  fact  that  the  higher  the  type  of  organism  the  less 
prolific  its  members,  the  further  fact  that  Nature's  pro- 
ductivity in  vegetation  is  largely  in  direct  ratio  of  the 
degree  of  man's  intelligence  in  cultivating  the  soil  —  all 
this  seems  to  indicate  that  the  "  Malthusian  law "  is  a 
vanishing  aspect  of  history  and  not  a  permanent  phase.* 

*  Compare  Mr.  Spencer's  "Principles  of  Biology,"  concluding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

CULMINATION  OF  THE  LIFE-PROCESS  IN  A  LIVING  UNIT 
WHICH  IS  CHARACTERIZED  BY  REFLECTIVE  CON- 
SCIOUSNESS. 

N  the  last  chapter  we  considered  some  of  the  leading 
aspects  of  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  with  reference 
to  continuity  of  development  in  life-forms,  and  found 
that  this  doctrine  in  its  larger  outlines  presents  nothing 
to  which  reasonable  objection  can  be  urged,  even  when 
it  includes  the  doctrine  of  the  descent  of  man  from 
lower  orders  of  organisms.  We  have  now  finally  to  con- 
sider briefly  what  may  reasonably  be  regarded  as  the 
culminating  aspect  of  the  life  of  Man,  in  whom  the  life- 
forms  of  the  world  culminate. 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  physically  constituted  living 
unit  externality  predominates,  and  that  thus  its  dissolu- 
tion sooner  or  later  is  inevitable.  While,  therefore,  the 
life-process  exhibits  or  is  characterized  by  universality, 
yet  that  universality  is  by  no  means  ultimate.  In  itself 
it  has  no  genuine  vitality.  It  is  only  when  considered 
as  a  phase  of  the  absolute  universality  of  the  World- 
Energy  itself,  that  the  universality  involved  in  any 
special  process  presents  its  truth  as  an  actual,  concrete, 
working  principle. 

And  to  thus  consider  each  specialized  phase  of  uni- 
versality is  but  to  follow  the  obvious  demand  of  reason. 

286 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  287 

For  any  special  fact  or  phase  of  the  world  can  be  truly 
comprehended  only  when  viewed  in  its  relations.  And 
the  wider  the  range  of  relations  included  in  the  view,  the 
more  adequate  the  judgment  formed  of  the  fact  or  phase 
of  existence  upon  which  the  view  is  directed.  And  thus 
again  do  we  reach  a  conclusion  already  indicated  in  the 
progress  of  this  inquiry:  That  each  special  fact  or  phase 
of  existence  is  itself,  thus  far,  the  manifestation  of  the 
universality  involved  in  the  World-Energy.  So  that  each 
and  every  fact  or  phase  of  existence  thus  presents  the 
characteristic  of  universality  in  its  very  nature.  It  is, 
indeed,  only  through  its  possessing  such  degree  of  uni- 
versality that  it  can  so  much  as  exist  at  all. 

But  the  point  of  supreme  significance  here  is  that  at 
the  stage  we  have  now  reached  the  phase  of  universality 
everywhere  appears  as  characterized  by  explicit  sub- 
jectivity. The  Universal  is  the  Soul  of  things.  But  it  is 
to  be  observed  further  that,  as  already  proven,  the  ulti- 
mate truth  of  subjectivity  is  shown  in  its  unfolding  itself 
as  an  absolute  process  of  self -objectifi cation ;  that  is,  once 
more,  in  a  process  of  self-particularization.  Whence  its 
infinitely  varied  discrete  forms  are  characterized  by 
measureless  elasticity  and  that  aspect  of  concrete  con- 
tinuity by  which  such  forms  undergo  transmutation,  the 
one  into  the  other.  There  is  no  absolute  line  of  separa- 
tion between  individual  fact  and  individual  fact,  between 
species  and  species,  nor  even  between  the  physical  and 
the  spiritual  aspects  of  existence.  The  physical  would 
have  no  meaning,  or  rather  it  could  have  no  existence, 
apart  from  the  spiritual;  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
spiritual,  in  its  character  of  spontaneity  as  concrete 
process  of  self-realization,  necessarily  develops,  along 


288  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

with  its  other  phases,  the  less  adequate  ones  constituting 
the  external,  physical  world. 

All  possible  forms  and  modes  of  existence,  then,  are 
but  so  many  phases  of  the  self-objectification  of  the  one 
absolutely  self-complete  Subject. 

But  the  complete  self-objectification  of  the  World- 
Energy  as  subject  necessarily  involves  precisely  this: 
That  the  highest  or  most  adequate  phase  of  self-objec- 
tification, shall  itself  as  object  still  bear  the  character  of 
a  subject.  The  objective  itself  must  develop  to  subjec- 
tivity and  become  reflective  consciousness  and  contem- 
plative knowing.  The  created  must  itself  take  on  the 
character  of  the  creative.  The  external  must  become 
once  more  explicitly  internal. 

Now  it  is  toward  this  very  end  that  the  successive 
phases  of  the  unfolding  of  the  objective  world  thus  far 
considered  have  been  seen  to  tend.  Even  centrality 
implies  some  slight  degree  of  vague  subjectivity.  In 
affinity  the  phase  of  internality  is  more  definitely  devel- 
oped; while  in  the  life-process  there  are  presented  all  the 
phases  of  spontaneity  from  the  automatic  process  of 
selection  and  assimilation  in  the  protozoan  to  the  complex 
preferences  and  voluntary  movements  of  the  most  highly 
developed  organisms.  Here  as  elsewhere  the  principle 
of  continuity  remains  unbroken.  The  widely  extended 
variations  in  degree  constitute  no  exception  to  the  law. 

The  striking  fact  is  that  throughout  the  series  there  is 
more  and  more  complete  blending  of  the  inner  and  the 
outer  in  the  given  object — the  object  itself  being  " given" 
as  we  have  seen,  through  the  entering  of  the  inner. 

And  now,  more  precisely,  the  "inner"  is  the  uni- 
versal, the  pervasive,  the  spontaneous.  As  universal  and 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  289 

pervasive,  it  possesses    absolute,,  indestructible  self -con- 
tinuity.    As  spontaneous,  it  is  self-realizing  process. 

But,  as  already  so  often  repeated,  its  self-realization 
is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  its  self -specialization,  its 
self -differentiation.  It  is  thus  precisely  that  the  uni- 
versal assumes  particularity  and  exhibits  this  as  the 
necessary  mode  of  its  own  self-realization. 

At  the  same  time,  this  blending  of  the  universal  with 
the  particular,  or  rather,  this  unfolding  of  the  universal 
in  the  particular,  gives  rise  to  definite  realized  existences 
which,  as  such,  present  the  characteristic  of  individ- 
uality. Such  individuality,  however,  is  a  self -contradic- 
tory one  so  long  as  the  universal  and  the  particular  are 
imperfectly  fused  therein.  For  just  so  long  is  the  indi- 
vidual pervaded  by  externality;  or  more  precisely,  it 
thus  far  fails  to  attain  to  genuine,  self-sufficing,  domi- 
nating subjectivity  or  spontaneity.  It  is,  therefore  des- 
tined to  undergo  dissolution  and  thus  proves  to  be  a 
divisible  individual. 

•  The  individuality  thus  far  examined,  then,  proves  to 
be  an  illusory  one. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  evident  that  the  elements  of  genuine 
individuality  have  already  presented  themselves,  even 
though  they  have  not  yet  been  shown  in  such  relation 
as  to  remove  all  doubt  of  the  actual  realization  of  such 
genuine  individuality  as  a  phase  of  the  created  world. 

It  is  this  which  constitutes  the  one  remaining  point 
of  our  inquiry. 

What  conditions,  if  any,  are  there  tending  toward  and 
rendering  certain  and  necessary  the  actual  realization  of 
genuine  individuals  —  indivisible,  spontaneous  units  — 
in  that  aspect  of  the  world  known  as  creation?  The 


290  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

simplest  (and  complementary)  factors  in  the  process  of 
creation,  as  we  have  seen,  are  universality  and  partic- 
ularity. 

We  have  now  to  note  and  emphasize  the  fact  that  it  is 
the  complete  fusion  of  these  factors  in  a  self-renewing 
process  that  must  constitute  genuine,,  concrete  individ- 
uality. This,  too,  we  have  already  seen  to  be  the  vital 
characteristic  of  the  World-Energy  itself,  considered  as 
Spirit.  That  is,  genuine  individuality  is  an  essentially 
spiritual  characteristic.  The  genuine,  adequate  concep- 
tion of  an  individual  is  that  of  a  spiritual,  self-conscious, 
self-active  unit.  An  individual  is  a  subject  which  un- 
folds itself  as  object.  It  is,  then,  legitimate,  as  well  as 
of  utmost  interest  to  ourselves  to  inquire  whether  there 
is,  as  many  have  actually  believed,  but  one  genuine, 
abiding  individual?  whether  all  "other"  individualities, 
including  the  human,  are  in  fact  only  relative,  vanish- 
ing, illusory  forms  or  modes  of  the  One  ? 

We  have  seen  that  the  World-Energy,  as  Spirit,  is  its 
own  end — its  own  final  purpose.  Consistently  with  this, 
too,  we  have  seen  that  its  total  activity  is  a  process  in 
which  the  subjective  forever  unfolds  into  the  object- 
ive. Nor  is  this  the  whole  truth.  Rather  it  so  develops 
the  objective  aspect  of  its  own  existence  that  through 
and  in  this  objective  aspect  the  subjective  comes  ever 
into  greater  and  greater  prominence — so  that  the  par- 
ticularized object,  as  such,  proves  to  be  dominated 
by,  and  with  increasing  degree  to  express,  a  specialized 
phase  of  subjectivity.  The  specialized  object,  let  us 
repeat,  is,  in  its  specific  character  of  specialized  object, 
itself  but  an  outerance  or  manifestation  of  the  absolute 
Subject. 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  291 

But  the  more  complex  and  adequate  this  particular 
manifestation  of  the  absolute  Subject,  only  so  much  the 
more  must  such  manifestation  itself  bear  the  character 
of  subjectivity  and  ultimately  suffice  as  a  distinct, 
independent  subject. 

It  would  seem,,  then,  that  the  World-Energy  as  Spirit 
not  only  objectifies  itself  in  the  forms  of  existence  per- 
taining to  the  space-world,  but  that  it  also  differentiates 
itself  as  spiritual  essence.  In  the  first  place,  indeed,  the 
latter  underlies  the  former.  But  also,  in  its  more  ade- 
quate phase  of  self-objectification,  it  must  approximate 
ever  toward  the  development  of  actual,  independent 
spiritual  units,  or  true  individuals. 

Nor  can  the  subjectivity  or  spirituality  of  the  World- 
Energy  itself  completely  realize  itself  save  through  per- 
fectly fusing  the  inner  and  the  outer  in  the  units  arising 
through  the  highest  phases  of  its  activity.  Not  merely 
must  it  blend  these  phases  in  general  in  its  own  single 
Individuality.  It  must  also  develop  itself  in  its  own 
differentiated  phases  up  to  the  point  of  the  fusion  of 
universality  and  particularity  in  the  highest  type  of  these 
differentiated  phases.  Not  otherwise,  indeed,  could 
creation  be  really  conceived  as  complete.  Thus  the 
highest  type  of  existence  in  the  created  world  is  seen  to 
be  at  once  the  culmination  of  the  whole  process  through 
which  particular  forms  of  existence  arise,  and  also  the 
development  through  that  process  of  actually  realized 
genuine  individuals,  as  the  fused  unities  of  universality 
and  particularity  necessarily  arising  through  the  eternal 
seli-differentiation  of  the  World-Energy  as  Spirit. 

Thus  the  universal,  absolute  Subjectivity  or  sponta- 
neous creative  Power,  self-specialized  in  the  forms  of 


292  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

individual  subjects,  proves  to  be  also  in  that  very  fact  a 
definitely  constituted  object  of  the  most  complex  type; 
while  at  the  same  time  the  special  object  thus  developed 
to  subjectivity  is  able  as  subject  to  regard  the  World-Pro- 
cess itself  as  object.  In  other  words,  the  self-objectifying 
of  the  World-Energy,  or  absolute,  self-realizing  Subject, 
attains  actual  completeness  only  in  the  development  in 
the  objective  world  of  a  specialized  unit,  in  which  uni- 
versality and  particularity  are  completely  blended,  in 
which  the  objective  and  the  subjective  are  completely 
interfused. 

Thus  constituted  the  unit  not  only  exhibits  subject- 
ivity as  its  dominant  characteristic,  but  also  exhibits  it 
developed  to  genuine  spontaneity.  Whence  the  unit 
shows  itself  to  be  already  an  actually  unfolded  individual, 
possessing  in  more  or  less  highly  developed  form  all 
the  fundamental  characteristics  of  the  absolute  divine 
Individual. 

In  its  fundamental  nature  this  finite  individual  is, 
then,  a  genuine  subject  or  concrete  thinking  agency;  and 
as  such  it  proves  to  be  in  its  type  the  absolute  culmination 
of  the  created  world.  For  it  is  true  subject;  and  yet  in 
that  very  fact  it  is  already  the  highest  possible  form  of 
object  which  the  absolute,  divine  Subject  can  put  forth 
from  itself.  For  it  is,  in  its  true  or  ideal  nature,  one  with 
the  divine  Subject. 

And  this  it  further  proves  itself  to  be  in  the  fact  that 
it  makes  itself  its  own  object;  while,  at  the  same  time,  as 
subject  or  thinking  agency,  it  also  opposes  itself  to 
(that  is,  contrasts  itself  with)  the  absolute  divine  Subject 
which,  as  such,  now  bears  the  character  of  absolute 
Object  to  the  created  subject. 


AND   ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  293 

Thus  the  absolute  spontaneity  of  the  divine  Spirit  is 
seen  to  return  to  itself  in  the  culmination  of  its  own 
creative  process  of  self-objectification.  And  this  re- 
turn again  is  but  one  aspect  of  the  total  process.  For 
the  created  subject  must  again,  as  spontaneous  energy, 
unfold  itself  into  realized  objectivity — which  it  does  in 
all  its  creations,  economic,  social,  civil,  religious,  artistic, 
scientific. 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon  that  man,  as  an 
individual  and  also  as  a  type  in  creation,  is  a  manifes- 
tation of  Thought,  which  is  primarily  not  his  own  indi- 
vidual thought.  Nor  is  he  alone  or  unique  in  this 
respect.  Every  other  animal — nay,  every  crystal  and 
every  atom — is  also  in  its  own  degree  a  manifestation  of 
the  same  Thought — that  is,  of  the  creative  Thought 
constituting  the  very  Substance  of  the  Universe.  Every 
man,  animal,  crystal,  atom,  is  a  particular  form  of 
existence.  And  yet  each  is  universal  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
an  embodiment  or  realization  of  a  type,  and  as  such  pre- 
sents the  essential  or  universal  characteristics  of  that 
type.  But  these  essential  or  universal  characteristics 
can  exist  as  such  only  in  and  as  thought.  Each  is,  in 
short,  just  one  specialized  phase  of  the  perfect  Thought 
constituting  the  Method  of  the  World-Energy.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  well-nigh  immeasurable  superiority  of 
man  to  these  other  manifestations  of  the  perfect  Thought 
consists  in  the  fact  that  man  is  something  more  than  a 
mere  "manifestation"  or  outer  form  of  Thought.  He 
is,  besides  this,  nothing  less  than  the  progressive  repro- 
duction of  the  very  Thought-Process  whose  one  perfect 
expression  is  the  whole,  eternal  Creation.  That  is,  man 
is  able  progressively  to  make  that  universal,  perfect 


294  THE    WORLD-ENERGY 

Thought  his  own  individual  thought.  Or,  in  other 
words,  the  "environment"  of  Man  the  thinker  is  pre- 
cisely the  Process  of  Creation  seen  as  the  actualized 
world  of  Reason  or  Thought.  So  that  the  real  or  true 
life  of  Man  is  the  continuous  adjustment  of  the  internal 
relations  consisting  of  his  own  individual  thought-process 
to  that  total  round  of  "external"  relations  consisting  of 
the  perfect  Thought-Process  unfolded  in  the  divine 
World-Energy.  And  this  is  "external"  to  man  only  in 
so  far  as  it  remains  unrealized  in  man. 

Thus  the  descent  of  man  must  be  considered  from  two 
points  of  view  which  at  first  sight  seem  to  exclude  each 
other.  He  is  an  animal  and  he  is  also  a  thinker,  by 
which  latter  fact  he  is  not  only  contrasted  with,  but,  it 
would  seem,  separated  by  an  impassable  gulf  from,  all 
other  animals,  and  even  from  himself  as  an  animal.  And 
yet,  as  we  have  seen,  all  animals,  along  with  all  other 
realities  in  the  Universe,  are  also  manifestations  of 
Thought  and  owe  their  very  existence  to  this  fact.  Nor 
is  this  all.  On  the  contrary,  the  classification  of  animals, 
which,  not  so  long  since,  was  based  largely  upon  the 
external  characteristics  of  form  and  color,  has  gradually 
come  to  be  based  upon  the  internal  characteristics  of 
structure  and  function.  It  is  not  a  little  significant,  too, 
that  in  this  new  method  of  classification  the  nervous 
system,  as  the  more  immediate  external  measure  of  the 
inmost  function  of  consciousness,  has  come  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  final  test  of  superiority  in  the  comparison 
of  animal  types.  Measured  by  this  test,  Man  simply 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  whole  series  of  forms  of  the 
animal  kingdom.  For  this  series  of  forms  presents  a 
scale  of  consciousness  grading  upward  by  scarcely  per- 


AND   ITS   SELF- CONSERVATION.  295 

ceptible  differences,  from  the  amoeba  to  that  unit  of  the 
organic  world  which  is  marked  off  from  all  the  rest  by 
his  power  of  comparing,  of  judging,  of  thinking,  of 
measuring  all  things  by  himself  as  the  standard  —  by  his 
power  of  ^//"-consciousness,  which  may  be  described  as 
consciousness  raised,  if  not  to  the  actual  power  whose 
exponent  is  infinity,  at  least  to  infinite  potentiality.  In 
short,  Mind  in  its  infinite  nature,  is  the  ultimate  function 
of  whatever  can  be  called  Matter.  Or,  more  precisely, 
Mind  unfolds  itself  into  Matter  as  its  own  spontaneously 
produced  organic  expression.  The  continuity  of  Matter 
has  its  truth  in  the  continuity  of  Mind  as  the  original, 
creative  Fact,  Deed,  Activity,  or  Actuality. 

Evidently,  then,  the  descent  of  man  from  successively 
lower  and  lower  orders  of  animals,  which  themselves  con- 
stitute a  minutely  graded  series  of  thought-forms,  and 
even  of  thought-functions,  is,  after  all,  nothing  else  than 
his  ascent  or  evolution  in  the  scale  of  godhood.  And 
always  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  descent  of  man 
cannot  possibly  have  been  from  animals,  merely  as  ani- 
mals, merely  as  physical,  or  material,  or  brute  natures 
(allowing  that  such  "  natures "  were  thinkable).  On  the 
contrary,  every  step,  every  factor  in  this  ascending  scale 
of  his  evolution  is  possible  for  man  only  because  each  step 
and  each  factor  is  expressive  simply  of  the  method  by 
which  Man,  the  Son,  is  born  of  God,  the  Father.  Just 
as  Life  can  come  only  from  the  living,  though  it  may  be 
through  units  which  are  in  themselves  not-living;  so  Man 
the  thinker  can  come  only  from  God  the  Thinker,  though 
it  may  be  through  a  marvelous  series  of  complex,  more 
or  less  conscious  forms,  which  in  and  of  themselves  can- 
not be  said  to  think. 


296  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

Doubtless  Man  was  made  of  the  dust  of  the  earth, 
and,  still  more  remotely,  of  cosmic  dust.  But  the  process 
of  his  development  is  nothing  less  than  the  process  of 
Reason  by  which  the  concurrence  of  elements  has  tended 
unfalteringly  toward  ever  greater  complexity  of  relation, 
until  at  length  there  arose  a  unit  which,  though  it  could 
not  be  said  to  think,  yet  was  itself  a  marvelous  embodi- 
ment of  Thought,  and  which,  by  further  advance,  grew 
into  that  degree  of  complexity  of  relations  which  may  be 
termed  self-relation — a  characteristic  better  known  under 
the  name  of  self-consciousness,  which  is,  in  fact,  the 
highest  term  of  centrality,  and  without  which  the  word 
centrality  itself  would  be  altogether  meaningless;  nay, 
without  which  all  words  and  all  things  were  impossible. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  Darwin  and  his  associates 
have  only  indicated  to  us  in  rough  outline  the  more  con- 
spicuous physical  aspects  of  the  mode  or  method  by  which 
Man,  the  progressively  unfolding  thinker,  has  descended 
from  the  eternally  perfect,  creative  Thinker.  The  inter- 
mediate links  may  very  likety  be:  savage,  primate,  worm, 
protoplasmic  pulp,  nebula;  but  these  are  in  reality  only 
roots  that  still  have  their  origin  in  and  draw  their  sole 
nutriment  from  the  primal  World-Energy.  This  is  the 
real  secret  of  their  incessantly  struggling  upward  through 
darkness  and  time  into  more  and  more  complex  forms  of 
Reason,  to  emerge  at  length  into  the  light  of  Eternity, 
which  for  every  man  is  but  the  ever  increasingly  clear 
consciousness  of  his  own  identity  in  nature  with  the 
primal  Thinker,  of  whose  Thought  the  whole  Universe 
is  but  the  outer,  organic  form. 

And  yet  this  ideal  identity  in  nature  of  the  created 
thinker  with  the  divine  Thinker  can  be  realized  only 


AND   ITS  SELF-CONSERVATION.  297 

through  progressive  stages  in  time.  Only  thus  can  the 
created  thinker  or  subject  unfold  into  realized,  objective 
existence,  through  a  spontaneous  process  which,  as 
essentially  the  self-objectification  of  ideally  true  sub- 
jectivity, is  in  its  nature  one  with  the  eternal  Process 
which  constitutes  the  concrete  truth  and  vitality  of  the 
divine  Subject. 

Following  any  other  way  the  finite  subject  must  fail  of 
self-realization.  Following  this  and  no  other  way,  the 
finite  subject  learns  that  in  so  doing  it  is  but  obeying  the 
law  of  its  own  nature;  for  this  law  is  the  law  of  absolute 
Reason — the  absolute,  unchangeable  law  inherent  in  the 
true  nature  of  every  thinking  agency. 

But  thus  it  realizes  its  own  freedom.  For  freedom 
consists  in  conscious  obedience  to  the  law  -  of  Reason, 
whereby  alone  self-realization  is  attainable.*  It  is  evident 
at  the  same  time  that  freedom  can  belong  only  to  a  think- 
ing unit,  to  a  genuine  individual,  to  whom,  and  to  none 
other,  is  conscious  obedience  possible. 

But  not  only  does  the  finite  subject  prove  to  be  in  its 
nature  capable  of  attaining  to  genuine,  concrete  freedom; 
but  another  infinitely  significant  inference  is  warranted 
from  the  fact  of  its  identity  in  nature  with  the  divine 
Subject.  In  that  fact  lies  the  assurance  that  the  finite 
subject  possesses  an  infinite  destiny. 

It  bears  within  itself,  indeed,  the  most  extraordinary 
contradiction.  It  is  created,  and  therefore  finite.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  a  subject  of  identical  nature  with  the 
absolute,  divine  Subject,  and  is  therefore  infinite.  Its 

*  Here,  indeed,  in  this  conscious,  glad  obedience  to  the  law  of  Reason,  we 
have  the  clue  to  the  highest  significance  of  that  ultimate  equilibration  of 
which  Mr.  Spencer  ("  First  Principles,'1'1  ch.  xxii,)  writes  so  suggestively,  and 
yet,  in  the  outcome,  as  it  seems  to  me,  so  unsatisfactorily. 


298  THE   WORLD-ENERGY 

finitude,  however,  is  on  the  side  of  its  present  realization, 
while  its  infinitude  is  on  the  side  of  its  ideal — that  is,  its 
typical  nature. 

It  has,  therefore,  an  infinite  ideal  to  fulfil;  and  yet 
must  fulfil  that  ideal  through  a  process  the  steps  of  which 
are  involved  in  succession.  Whence  it  appears  that  it 
can  never  absolutely,  exhaustively  fulfil  its  destiny; 
though  at  every  stage  in  its  approximation  toward  the 
fulfilment  of  that  destiny,  its  vigor  as  a  self-identical, 
vital  unit  must  be  by  so  much  enhanced. 

We  may  fairly  conclude,  therefore,  that  there  can  be 
no  period  in  the  self -consistent  existence  of  the  subject  or 
spiritual  unit  in  which  the  tendency  toward  dissolution 
can  so  much  as  balance,  much  less  predominate  over,  the 
tendency  toward  increase  of  vigor  involving  its  assured 
permanence  as  precisely  the  .  self-same,  self-identical 
spiritual  unit  whose  free,  self-consistent  activity  neces- 
sarily tends  ever  toward  its  own  perfection. 

Thus  the  created  subject  proves  to  be  in  its  very  nature 
a  genuine  individual,  an  indivisible,  immortal,  self-com- 
pleting ideal  totality.  It  is  characterized  by  substantial 
universality,  and  hence  possesses  genuine  continuity.  Its 
perpetuated  existence,  then,  is  one  in  which  its  self- 
identity  could  not  be  lost. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  a  vital,  concrete  universal,  it 
must  persistently  prove  itself  an  active  unit,  a  unit  which, 
through  its  own  spontaneous  activity,  unfolds  itself  into 
continuously  multiplied  complexity  of  specialization. 

As  universal  it  particularizes  itself.  As  possessing 
genuine  continuity  it  spontaneously  develops  itself  into 
ever  more  manifold  discrete  modes.  As  self-special- 
izing universal  it  is,  once  more,  a  divinely  constituted 


AND    ITS   SELF-CONSERVATION.  299 

individual  possessing  an  infinite  destiny.     It  is  lord  of 
time  and  heir  of  Eternity. 


The  World-Energy  is  God.  Its  self -conservation  is  the 
eternal  process  of  Creation.  "Evolution"  is  the  temporal 
aspect  of  this  process.  The  self-unfolding  of  God  culmi- 
nates in  man.  For  man  is  the  Son  of  God. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Action,  at  a  distance,  explanation 
of,  152;  chemical,  184;  and  re- 
action, 108,  196. 

Actual,  the,  the  total  round  of 
possibilities  is,  118. 

Affinity,  chemical  and  its  devel- 
opment, 250;  higher  aspects  of, 
251,  257. 

Affirmation  involves  negation, 
*.  e.,  differentiation,  237. 

Agassiz,  276 ;  misinterpretation  of 
Darwinism,  279. 

Agnosticism,  266. 

Aristotle,  210 ;  on  law  of  contra- 
diction, 25,  116;  categories  of, 
'  105;  doctrine  of  substance,  117. 

Aryan  race,  283. 

Atom,  58,  151 ;  definition  of,  giv- 
en by  science,  59 ;  as  force-cen- 
ter, 66,  144;  as  a  phase  of  the 
physical  universe,  67. 

Atomic  theory,  58,  92. 

Attraction,  49. 

Attraction  and  repulsion,  as  com- 
plementary modes  of  energy, 
52;  the  initial  qualitative  dif- 
ferences constituting  the  reality 
of  matter,  89;  unity  of,  under 
the  form  of  electricity,  191. 

Attributes,  of  substance,  107; 
Spinoza's  definition  of,  105. 

B. 

Baer,  von,  276. 

Becoming,  116. 

Being  and  non-being,  115. 

Biogenesis,  259. 

"Bodies,"    discrete     phases    of 

force,  140. 
Brahm,  223. 

c. 

Categories  of  Aristotle,  105. 
Cause,  doctrine  of,  207;  final,  as 


method,  254;  four  phases  of, 
210. 

Cause  and  effect,  reciprocal  as- 
pects in  every  event,  209. 

Centrality,  246,  249,  256;  in  kind, 
contrasted  with  c.  in  space,  280; 
highest  term  of,  296. 

Certitude,  absolute  test  of,  29; 
Descartes  on,  20. 

Change,  possible  only  through 
impressed  force,  146;  meaning 
of,  28,  213. 

Chemistry,  a  form  of  applied 
mathematics,  91;  an  aspect  of 
physics,  186. 

Conception,  how  inducive  of 
thought,  19,  note;  implies  per- 
ception, 18;  a  seizure  of  rela- 
tions, 16. 

Consciousness,  function  of,  3 ;  in- 
dividual, 5,  19;  power  of,  not 
creative,  but  transforming,  3, 
5;  ultimate  range  of,  5-7;  de- 
gree of,  measured  in  nervous 
system,  294. 

Conservation  of  Energy,  199,  202. 

Continuity,  principle  of,  276,  288; 
and  discreteness  of  quantity  in 
matter,  83. 

Contradiction,  law  of,  an  ad- 
vanced phase  of  law  of  consist- 
ency, 25;  as  stated  by  Aris- 
totle, 25;  true  significance  of, 
27. 

Creation,  the  one  eternal  fact,  253. 

Creator  and  creation,  215. 

Crystallization,  181. 

». 

Dalton,  92. 

Darwin,  Charles,  268,  270. 

Definite  proportions,  Dalton'slaw 

of,  92. 
Death,  262. 


300 


INDEX. 


301 


Democritus,  theory  of,  58,  60. 

Descartes,  on  the  ultimate  ground 
of  certitude,  20;  on  creation 
and  preservation,  253. 

Descent,  doctrine  of,  what  it  real- 
ly is,  278. 

Discoverers,  typical,  228. 

Discoveries,  definition  of,  227. 

Discrete,  the,  implies  the  con- 
tinuous, 83,  261. 

Divine,  early  form  of  conception 
of  the,  as  Unity,  222. 

JE. 

Elasticity,  defined  as  interfusion 
of  attraction  and  repulsion,  193. 

Electricity,  95,  191;  and  mag- 
netism, 187. 

Elements,  chemical,  75;  special- 
ized conditions  of  homogeneous 
"matter,"  77,  185. 

Ellipse,  176. 

Emanation  and  absorption,  152, 
236. 

Energy,  absolute  unity  of,  202; 
Aristotle's  definition  of  as  abso- 
lute Divine  Spirit,  148;  as  ade- 
quate cause  of  motion,  143;  as 
an  all-inclusive  process,  108; 
conservation  of,  196;  conserva- 
tion of,  doctrine  of,  199;  Her- 
bert Spencer  on  conservation 
of,  202;  first  law  of  thought 
implies  the  conservation  of,  24 ; 
differentiation  of,  205;  dissipa- 
tion of,  a  phase  in  a  wider  pro- 
cess, 198-9;  self-conserved,  214; 
kinetic,  168:  the  substance  of 
all  reality,  204;  totality  of,  al- 
ways in  equilibrium,  200;  sig- 
nificant change  in  use  of  term, 
148. 

"  Environment,"  271,  275,  294. 

Equilibrium,  of  the  total,  143 ;  of 
energy,  an  eternally  accom- 
plished fact,  241;  various  as- 
pects of,  104,  143,  199,  222, 
238,  297,  note. 

Ether,  73,  91. 

Evolution,  doctrine  of,  first  pre- 
sented in  metaphysical  form, 


120;  and  involution,  252;  Her- 
bert Spencer  on,  265;  method 
of,  272;  of  life  forms,  255;  phi- 
losophy, 232. 

Excluded  middle,  law  of,  28. 

Experience,  limit  of,  5 ;  is  realiza- 
tion of  knowledge,  23. 

Experiment,  must  begin  in 
thought,  119. 

F. 

Fact,  the  one  changeless,  is 
the  infinitely  complex  fact  of 
change,  247;  true  significance 
of,  228;  creation,  the  one  eter- 
nal, 253. 

"  Fact,"  in  part  the  creation  of 
consciousness,  4. 

Fac,ts,  dependent  upon  theory  for 
their  value,  2 ;  intelligible  only 
on  interpretation,  2. 

Falling  bodies,  laws  of,  163. 

Finite,  the,  phase  of  the  infinite, 
100. 

Force,  centrifugal,  174;  exerted 
only  in  opposing  force,  62; 
manifestation  of  dual,  180;  is 
force  only  through  action,  143; 
persistence  of,  Herbert  Spencer 
on,  149;  motion  as  a  realized 
form  of,  167;  the  "active" 
phase  of  the  world,  62;  sole 
reality  of  matter,  64. 

Forces, 'chemical,  identity  of  with 
other  natural  forces,  186;  cor- 
relation of,  196. 

Force-centre  (atom),  focus  of 
an  indefinitely  extended  force- 
sphere,  144. 

Freedom  and  necessity,  238. 

o. 

Generation,  spontaneous,  260. 

God,  the  only  reality,  241 ;  Chris- 
tian conception  of,  224. 

Gravitation,  dependent  upon 
quantity,  not  quality,  of  mat- 
ter, 155;  law  of,  145,  150. 

Gravity,  center  of,  50 ;  a  necessa- 
ry aspect  or  mode  of  things, 
158,  172. 


302 


I^DEX. 


H. 

Haeckel,  Ernest,  268. 

Heat,  181;  a  mode  of  matter,  183. 

Hegel,  as  an  organizer  of  science, 
29,  118,  231;  "  NaturpWoso- 
phie,"  233. 

Heraclitus,  doctrine  of,  109,  115, 
118. 

Hindu  conception  of  creation,  223. 

Human  race,  origin  of,  theories 
of  Agassiz  and  Darwin,  recon- 
ciliation of,  282. 

Hypotheses,  what  are  acceptable, 
227. 

I. 

Idealism,  various  aspects  of,  31. 

Identity,  absolute,  includes  all 
differences,  28 ;  law  of,  24 ;  ex- 
cludes change  from  existence  as 
a  whole,  27. 

Individual,  the  World-Energy  as 
an  all-inclusive,  236;  the  cre- 
ated, 298. 

Individuality,  248,  289. 

Inertia,  law  of,  133. 

Infinite,  the,  in  relation  to  finite, 
100;  as  an  object  of  thought, 
224;  true,  237. 

Intelligence,  individual,  limit  of 
possible  development  of,  7;  uni- 
versal type  of,  6,  252. 

Internal  and  external,  108,  239, 
245,  251,  256,  259,  288. 

K. 

Kant,  on  space,  empirical  and 
absolute,  11,  111;  on  concep- 
tions and  perceptions,  18;  on 
value  of  universal  logic,  120. 

Knowledge,  coincident  with  ex- 
perience, 23 ;  objective  and  sub- 
jective in  its  nature,  30 ;  of  rela- 
tions and  "  relative  "  k.,  98, 126. 

Known  and  unknown,  funda- 
mentally related  through  the 
transforming  power  of  mind,  6. 


Law  of  multiple  proportions,  93. 
Laws  of  thought,  24;  as  laws  of 
things,  241 ;  necessary,  29. 


Life,  attempts  to  artificially  pro- 
duce, 266;  origin  of,  in  and 
through  the  World -Energy, 
259,  271;  H.  Spencer's  defini- 
tion of,  275. 

Life-forms,  evolution  of,  255. 

Life-process,  the  fusion  of  the 
internal  and  the  external,  258 ; 
culmination  of,  in  man,  286. 

Light,  191 ;  as  a  subjective  crea- 
tion, 193. 

Living  unit  and  its  environment, 
271,  275,  294. 

Lockyer,  J.  Norman,  77. 

Logic,  formal,  231;  universal, 
Kant  on,  120;  of  Hegel,  232; 
of  events,  231. 

Logos,  the,  272. 

M. 

Magnet,  action  of,  153. 

Magnetism,  187. 

Malthus,  285. 

Man,  descent  of,  278,  295;  devel- 
opment of,  as  a  process  of 
reason,  296;  modern  and  an- 
cient, 284;  the  Son  of  God,  299. 

Many,  the,  as  aspect  of  the  "to- 
tal," complementary  to  the 
1  'one,"  17,  82,  220,  235. 

Matter,  40;  continuous,  but  also 
discrete,  83;  extensive  and  in- 
tensive phases  of  quantity  in, 
86;  G.  H.  Lewes'  definition  of, 
63;  infinite  divisibility  of,  84; 
actual  infinite  division  of,  152; 
organic  and  inorganic,  268; 
penetrability  of,  68;  properties 
of,  55 ;  quantitative  relations  in, 
80;  total  volume  of  unlimited, 
47 ;  consists  primarily  of  attrac- 
tion and  repulsion,  73. 

Maxims,  abridged  statement  of 
theories,  1. 

Maxwell,  Clerk,  on  matter  and 
motion,  125. 

Measure,  a  comparison  with  a 
fixed  standard,  97. 

Measurable,  a  phase  of  the  meas- 
ureless, 100. 

Mind,  active,  as  well  as  passive, 


INDEX. 


303 


3;   a  function  of  matter,  295; 

identity  of  with  the  world,  7. 
Molecular  and  mechanical  energy, 

identity  in  kind  of,  189. 
Momentum,  157,  161. 
Motion,  curvilinear,  170;   energy 

as  adequate  cause  of,  143 ;  laws 

of,  131;  molecular,  178;  nature 

of,    122;    possibility    of,    109; 

relativity  of,  123. 

BF« 

Nature,  the  organic  aspect  of 
thought,  267;  the  "outer,"  as 
distinguished  from  thought  the 
"inner,"  37. 

Necessity  and  freedom,  238. 

Negative,  equivalent  to  affirma- 
tive, 235,  237. 

Noumenon  and  phenomenon,  53. 

Number,  infinite,  has  no  mean- 
ing, 114. 

Numbers,  powers  of,  101. 

o. 

Object  and  subject,  as  phases  of 
the  universe,  38,  239,  288. 

Object  (matter),  presented  to  con- 
sciousness as  resistance,  40. 

"One,"  the,  an  aspect  of  the 
"total,"  complementary  to 
"the  many,"  17,  82,  220,  235. 

Order,  logical  and  chronological, 
221,  243,  281. 

Origin,  265 ;  of  species,  273 ;  con- 
tinuous aspect  of,  280. 

P. 

Pantheism,  253. 

Parallelogram  of  forces,  138. 

Parmenides,  109. 

Perception,  8;  implies  concep- 
tion, 17;  the  simplest,  a  com- 
plex fact,  15. 

Phenomenon  and  noumenon,  53. 

Philosophy  and  science,  no  antag- 
onism between,  233. 

Physical,  the,  the  initial  phase  of 
the  spiritual,  23. 

Plato,  53,  215. 

Potentiality,  in  relation  to  poten- 
cy, 221,  242,  250. 


Process,  the,  of  the  world,  253. 


Qualitative  difference,  88;  deter- 
mined by  variations  of  intensive 
quantity,  88,  94. 

Quality  and  quantity,  different 
aspects  of  the  same  sum  of  facts 
in  the  universe,  89;  real  only  as 
attributes  of  substance,  105, 
106;  the  intensive  phase  of 
matter,  185. 

Quantity,  extensive  and  intensive 
in  matter,  86,  97;  varying  rela- 
tions between,  determine  quali- 
tative differences  in  matter,  94; 
continuity  and  discreteness  of, 
in  matter,  83,  120. 

R. 

Reality,  ultimate,  54. 

Reason,  absolute,  240. 

Receptivity,  another  name  for  re- 
action, 107. 

Relations,  logical  and  chronolog- 
ical order  of ,  221,  243,281. 

Relativity  of  knowledge,  21,  98, 
126. 

Repulsion,  40;  attraction  and,  52; 
a  relation  of  reciprocal  action, 
43;  a  form  of  attraction,  48. 

Revelation,  an  eternally  accom- 
plished fact,  229;  in  what  sense 
progressive,  230. 

s. 

Sensation  as  primary  phase  of 
consciousness,  7. 

Science,  exact,  must  keep  within 
the  limits  of  measure,  99;  and 
philosophy,  no  antagonism  be- 
tween, 233;  mathematical,  pur- 
pose of,  99. 

Self -consistency,  law  of,  22. 

Self -consciousness,  primary  unity 
of,  19;  unity  of,  the  condition 
of  all  knowledge,  20 ;  of  World- 
Energy,  226,  234,  240. 

Sound,  191;  as  subjective  crea- 
tion, 193. 

Space,  8;  a  condition  of  sensa- 
tion, 9;  fourth  dimension  of, 


304 


I^DEX. 


102;  movable,  111;  infinite, 
125;  its  unreality,  122,  127; 
negation  of,  13,  note. 

Species,  origin  of,  273;  variable, 
275. 

Spectrum  analysis,  75. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  268;  on  abso- 
lute being,  54;  definition  of 
life,  275. 

Sphericity,  249. 

Spinoza,  105,  120. 

Spirit,  as  self -realizing  method 
equal  to  the  World-Energy,  234 ; 
as  self-externalizing  internali- 
ty,  239;  modes  of  activity  of, 
independent  of  space  relations, 
244. 

Spontaneity  of  World-Energy, 
143,  149,  226,  229,  251,  292. 

Stewart,  Balfour,  198. 

Subject  and  object,  as  phases  of 
the  universe,  38,  245,  288. 

Subject,  finite,  identity  of,  in  its 
true  nature,  with  divine  sub- 
ject, 292,  297. 

Substance,  as  defined  by  Spinoza, 
105;  by  Aristotle,  106. 

T. 

Tension,  electric,  analogy  of,  to 
that  of  Prince  Rupert's  drop, 
188 ;  varying  degrees  of,  result- 
ing in  qualities,  102. 

Theory,  2,  228. 

Thinking,  distinguished  from  im- 
agining, 260,  note. 

"  Things"  in  relation  to  thought, 
29,  271. 

Thought,  as  the  substance  of  the 
universe,  293;  central  truth 
and  essence  of  the  world,  226 ; 
human,  struggle  for  self-devel- 
opment of,  228;  "inner,"'  as 
distinguished  from  nature, 
which  is  the  "outer,"  37;  laws 
of,  .24;  formulated  as  the  laws 
of  things,  29;  and  justly  so, 
241 ;  as  such  necessarily  ab- 
stract, but  also  necessarily  self- 
affirming,  234;  system  of,  is  the 
system  of  the  world,  230. 


Time,  a  condition  of  sensation, 
13;  essential  element  of  motion, 
159 ;  real  only  as  form  of 
change,  265. 

Totality  of  world  a  self -related 
totality,  147. 

Truth,  how  attained,  39 ;  the  cor- 
rect interpretation  of  fact,  2. 

Types,  organic,  invariable,  276. 

U. 

Unity,  abstract  and  concrete, 
phases  of,  101. 

Universality,  particularity  and  in- 
dividuality, 221,  236,  248,  287. 

Unknowable,  6,  100,  230. 

w. 

Weight,  an  accident  of  matter,  72. 

World,  the,  as  a  self-related  total- 
ity, 147;  identity  of,  with 
mind,  7;  sum  total  of  Energy, 
194;  the  only  possible,  to  be 
known,  6,  7;  no  "material" 
apart  from  the  spiritual,  241. 

World-Energy,  and  the  process 
of  its  unfolding,  205;  as  abso- 
lute spirit,  237,  260;  -as  abso- 
lute vitality,  259;  as  absolute 
process  of  Reason,  238;  as  know- 
ing subject  and  known  object, 
226;  as  method,  272;  as  self- 
objectifying  subject,  239,  288; 
as  self-realizing  Reason  or  as 
will,  238,  240;  as  spirit,  218; 
as  system,  226;  as  the  expres- 
sion of  necessity,  238 ;  bears  the 
aspect  of  absolute  potentiality, 
220;  characterized  by  univer- 
sality, particularity  and  indi- 
viduality, 221;  manifestations 
of,  as  spirit,  242;  unity  of,  219; 
self-differentiation  of,  104,  205, 
220,  235,  244,  289. 
z. 

Zeno,  109;  paradox  of,  112. 

Zero,  absolute,  183;  absolute  of 
temperature,  103;  a  point  of 
transition  or  of  equilibrium, 
104;  in  number,  purely  sub- 
jective, 103. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


FEB    9    1935 
W 


IAY  2  2  '65  -1  PW 


LD  21-100m-8,'34 


4-  4  tf/6 

Q  /  7  iT. 
577 


m 

f 


."•  -  -  . 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


